<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_27_2214220</id>
	<title>No Hand-Held Devices In Ontario Cars</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256637660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>NIK282000 writes <i>"To cut down on accidents caused by drivers who aren't paying attention, in Ontario it is now a <a href="http://handsfreeinfo.com/ontario-reins-in-handheld-devices">ticketable offense to text, email, or navigate with your GPS</a> while driving. But it seems to me that they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, because it is now also a $500 fine to change your radio station, change songs on your MP3 player, or even drink your morning coffee. It can also be enforced to the point where changing the climate controls on your dash can get you fined because it requires you to take your hands off the wheel. Though this was a good idea, it seems to have been taken a little too far."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NIK282000 writes " To cut down on accidents caused by drivers who are n't paying attention , in Ontario it is now a ticketable offense to text , email , or navigate with your GPS while driving .
But it seems to me that they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater , because it is now also a $ 500 fine to change your radio station , change songs on your MP3 player , or even drink your morning coffee .
It can also be enforced to the point where changing the climate controls on your dash can get you fined because it requires you to take your hands off the wheel .
Though this was a good idea , it seems to have been taken a little too far .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NIK282000 writes "To cut down on accidents caused by drivers who aren't paying attention, in Ontario it is now a ticketable offense to text, email, or navigate with your GPS while driving.
But it seems to me that they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, because it is now also a $500 fine to change your radio station, change songs on your MP3 player, or even drink your morning coffee.
It can also be enforced to the point where changing the climate controls on your dash can get you fined because it requires you to take your hands off the wheel.
Though this was a good idea, it seems to have been taken a little too far.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896299</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>zorg50</author>
	<datestamp>1256740800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who on earth thinks drinking coffee while driving could ever be a good idea?</p><p>How do you change gear?</p><p>I applaud this law.</p><p>When you're in the car driving, that's what you should do, drive. *Not* eat sandwiches, drink coffee, play computer games, telephone, etc. etc. Doing so not only puts your stupid life at risk but mine as well.</p></div><p>Ever heard of automatic transmissions?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who on earth thinks drinking coffee while driving could ever be a good idea ? How do you change gear ? I applaud this law.When you 're in the car driving , that 's what you should do , drive .
* Not * eat sandwiches , drink coffee , play computer games , telephone , etc .
etc. Doing so not only puts your stupid life at risk but mine as well.Ever heard of automatic transmissions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who on earth thinks drinking coffee while driving could ever be a good idea?How do you change gear?I applaud this law.When you're in the car driving, that's what you should do, drive.
*Not* eat sandwiches, drink coffee, play computer games, telephone, etc.
etc. Doing so not only puts your stupid life at risk but mine as well.Ever heard of automatic transmissions?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894773</id>
	<title>Re:RTFS</title>
	<author>sqldr</author>
	<datestamp>1256729460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"or even drink your morning coffee".. he had me until he said that.  wtf.. driving and drinking coffee?  Please get off the road, and come back when you can pay attention to the 2 tonne vehicle you're supposed to be in control of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" or even drink your morning coffee " .. he had me until he said that .
wtf.. driving and drinking coffee ?
Please get off the road , and come back when you can pay attention to the 2 tonne vehicle you 're supposed to be in control of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"or even drink your morning coffee".. he had me until he said that.
wtf.. driving and drinking coffee?
Please get off the road, and come back when you can pay attention to the 2 tonne vehicle you're supposed to be in control of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899661</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256754540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BC has no laws in place regarding cell phone use while driving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BC has no laws in place regarding cell phone use while driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BC has no laws in place regarding cell phone use while driving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895481</id>
	<title>most distracting thing in cars- children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to all the safety boards the most distracting things while driving  are children. (And adults behaving like children). So perhaps children should be put in the boot (trunk) of the vehicle or banned from vehicles?</p><p>How did humans survive driving before these rules?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to all the safety boards the most distracting things while driving are children .
( And adults behaving like children ) .
So perhaps children should be put in the boot ( trunk ) of the vehicle or banned from vehicles ? How did humans survive driving before these rules ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to all the safety boards the most distracting things while driving  are children.
(And adults behaving like children).
So perhaps children should be put in the boot (trunk) of the vehicle or banned from vehicles?How did humans survive driving before these rules?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627</id>
	<title>They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People here have been ticketed for eating apples or sipping water, while stopped at traffic lights.</p><p>Eventually, somebody will realise that people with the first frigging clue about driving (and a self-preservation instinct) do these things WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO. It's the people without the first clue of driving who need the attention of the authorities, and these people are ingineous at finding ways of being dangerous while driving exactly 'by the book'. Cops should pull people who are obviously being a danger (all over the road, near misses etc etc), rather than based on a tickbox system (is speed &gt;X? Is driver doing activity Y?) as seems to be increasingly the case in many areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People here have been ticketed for eating apples or sipping water , while stopped at traffic lights.Eventually , somebody will realise that people with the first frigging clue about driving ( and a self-preservation instinct ) do these things WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO .
It 's the people without the first clue of driving who need the attention of the authorities , and these people are ingineous at finding ways of being dangerous while driving exactly 'by the book' .
Cops should pull people who are obviously being a danger ( all over the road , near misses etc etc ) , rather than based on a tickbox system ( is speed &gt; X ?
Is driver doing activity Y ?
) as seems to be increasingly the case in many areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People here have been ticketed for eating apples or sipping water, while stopped at traffic lights.Eventually, somebody will realise that people with the first frigging clue about driving (and a self-preservation instinct) do these things WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO.
It's the people without the first clue of driving who need the attention of the authorities, and these people are ingineous at finding ways of being dangerous while driving exactly 'by the book'.
Cops should pull people who are obviously being a danger (all over the road, near misses etc etc), rather than based on a tickbox system (is speed &gt;X?
Is driver doing activity Y?
) as seems to be increasingly the case in many areas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899809</id>
	<title>Really not a problem</title>
	<author>BuffaloBill</author>
	<datestamp>1256755140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By the time a US driver hits the 16 lanes of traffic on the 401 north of Toronto (all doing 120k or better) you couldn't pry his fingers off the wheel with a screwdriver.  By this time he has come from Detroit, (or Buffalo on the QEW) and has been traumatized by the new Canadians zipping by at the speed of light. If he has neglected to opt for the 407 (daylight robbery in the form of tolls by the Spanish owners), he is caught on the QEW which is a linear parking lot between Appleby Line and the Gardiner Exp. downtown.  Its best then if he is packing lunch and a novel to pass the time.  If you are enticed to stay with the traffic on the open stretches and they find you 20k or more over the limit, they fine you $2500cdn and impound your car on the spot.  Best to keepit under 72mph.  Actually I like driving there as they seem most professional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By the time a US driver hits the 16 lanes of traffic on the 401 north of Toronto ( all doing 120k or better ) you could n't pry his fingers off the wheel with a screwdriver .
By this time he has come from Detroit , ( or Buffalo on the QEW ) and has been traumatized by the new Canadians zipping by at the speed of light .
If he has neglected to opt for the 407 ( daylight robbery in the form of tolls by the Spanish owners ) , he is caught on the QEW which is a linear parking lot between Appleby Line and the Gardiner Exp .
downtown. Its best then if he is packing lunch and a novel to pass the time .
If you are enticed to stay with the traffic on the open stretches and they find you 20k or more over the limit , they fine you $ 2500cdn and impound your car on the spot .
Best to keepit under 72mph .
Actually I like driving there as they seem most professional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the time a US driver hits the 16 lanes of traffic on the 401 north of Toronto (all doing 120k or better) you couldn't pry his fingers off the wheel with a screwdriver.
By this time he has come from Detroit, (or Buffalo on the QEW) and has been traumatized by the new Canadians zipping by at the speed of light.
If he has neglected to opt for the 407 (daylight robbery in the form of tolls by the Spanish owners), he is caught on the QEW which is a linear parking lot between Appleby Line and the Gardiner Exp.
downtown.  Its best then if he is packing lunch and a novel to pass the time.
If you are enticed to stay with the traffic on the open stretches and they find you 20k or more over the limit, they fine you $2500cdn and impound your car on the spot.
Best to keepit under 72mph.
Actually I like driving there as they seem most professional.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897549</id>
	<title>Fiddling with the radio is dangerous</title>
	<author>ChaosDiscord</author>
	<datestamp>1256745660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a pretty good driver, right?  You can fiddle with the radio, adjust the temperature, even safely drink coffee while driving.  However, have you looked at your fellow drivers?  They're idiots!  You see them poking away at their Blackberry at 75 MPH, weaving back and forth while juggling things in their car, being completely oblivious to surrounding traffic as they scream at their passengers.  My parents had a tree badly damaged when a neighbor hit it while fiddling with the radio while pulling out of the driveway!

</p><p>Cars are dangerous.  When someone fucks up property can be damaged and innocent people are sometimes injured or killed.  As such, I damn well want laws to try and reign in the idiots, since sometimes it's my property or my life on the line.  Going after people for reckless driving isn't nearly as good.  Part of the reason people get sloppy is because the overwhelming majority of the time nothing bad happens; they don't so much as creep out of their lane.  The first time anyone may discover that the idiot in the car next to you can't safely talk on the phone and drive is when they hit another car.  You can bust them for reckless driving then, but I'd rather they didn't hit me in the first place.  If this means I need to suffer the terrible oppression of not being able to legally talk on the phone while I drive, I'm willing to accept that.  Somehow the founding fathers failed to enshrine your right to talk on the phone while driving into the constitution.  It's not an inalienable right.  Get the fuck over yourself and accept this amazingly minor infringement on your freedom for the betterment of society as a whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a pretty good driver , right ?
You can fiddle with the radio , adjust the temperature , even safely drink coffee while driving .
However , have you looked at your fellow drivers ?
They 're idiots !
You see them poking away at their Blackberry at 75 MPH , weaving back and forth while juggling things in their car , being completely oblivious to surrounding traffic as they scream at their passengers .
My parents had a tree badly damaged when a neighbor hit it while fiddling with the radio while pulling out of the driveway !
Cars are dangerous .
When someone fucks up property can be damaged and innocent people are sometimes injured or killed .
As such , I damn well want laws to try and reign in the idiots , since sometimes it 's my property or my life on the line .
Going after people for reckless driving is n't nearly as good .
Part of the reason people get sloppy is because the overwhelming majority of the time nothing bad happens ; they do n't so much as creep out of their lane .
The first time anyone may discover that the idiot in the car next to you ca n't safely talk on the phone and drive is when they hit another car .
You can bust them for reckless driving then , but I 'd rather they did n't hit me in the first place .
If this means I need to suffer the terrible oppression of not being able to legally talk on the phone while I drive , I 'm willing to accept that .
Somehow the founding fathers failed to enshrine your right to talk on the phone while driving into the constitution .
It 's not an inalienable right .
Get the fuck over yourself and accept this amazingly minor infringement on your freedom for the betterment of society as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a pretty good driver, right?
You can fiddle with the radio, adjust the temperature, even safely drink coffee while driving.
However, have you looked at your fellow drivers?
They're idiots!
You see them poking away at their Blackberry at 75 MPH, weaving back and forth while juggling things in their car, being completely oblivious to surrounding traffic as they scream at their passengers.
My parents had a tree badly damaged when a neighbor hit it while fiddling with the radio while pulling out of the driveway!
Cars are dangerous.
When someone fucks up property can be damaged and innocent people are sometimes injured or killed.
As such, I damn well want laws to try and reign in the idiots, since sometimes it's my property or my life on the line.
Going after people for reckless driving isn't nearly as good.
Part of the reason people get sloppy is because the overwhelming majority of the time nothing bad happens; they don't so much as creep out of their lane.
The first time anyone may discover that the idiot in the car next to you can't safely talk on the phone and drive is when they hit another car.
You can bust them for reckless driving then, but I'd rather they didn't hit me in the first place.
If this means I need to suffer the terrible oppression of not being able to legally talk on the phone while I drive, I'm willing to accept that.
Somehow the founding fathers failed to enshrine your right to talk on the phone while driving into the constitution.
It's not an inalienable right.
Get the fuck over yourself and accept this amazingly minor infringement on your freedom for the betterment of society as a whole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>shabble</author>
	<datestamp>1256730540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a related note...</p><p>Do none of these places have an offense of "driving without due care or attention" which would suffice, rather than continuously create bespoke laws to legislate against every new device that comes out that could cause drivers to, erm, drive without due care or attention?</p><p>(And, yes, the UK does have the first offense, but they still felt the need to create a special law for mobile phone usage.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a related note...Do none of these places have an offense of " driving without due care or attention " which would suffice , rather than continuously create bespoke laws to legislate against every new device that comes out that could cause drivers to , erm , drive without due care or attention ?
( And , yes , the UK does have the first offense , but they still felt the need to create a special law for mobile phone usage .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a related note...Do none of these places have an offense of "driving without due care or attention" which would suffice, rather than continuously create bespoke laws to legislate against every new device that comes out that could cause drivers to, erm, drive without due care or attention?
(And, yes, the UK does have the first offense, but they still felt the need to create a special law for mobile phone usage.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897443</id>
	<title>This was NOT a good idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone is driving dangerously because theyre fiddling with their phone or whatever, pull them over for driving dangerously... ITS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW... no new laws are needed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone is driving dangerously because theyre fiddling with their phone or whatever , pull them over for driving dangerously... ITS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW... no new laws are needed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone is driving dangerously because theyre fiddling with their phone or whatever, pull them over for driving dangerously... ITS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW... no new laws are needed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895597</id>
	<title>Fox News anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure if the original post was meant to be sarcastic or anything, but after looking at the actualy law, it states NOTHING about coffee, radio, A/C.</p><p>Either that or they work for the right-wing media, who are also quite good at making crap up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if the original post was meant to be sarcastic or anything , but after looking at the actualy law , it states NOTHING about coffee , radio , A/C.Either that or they work for the right-wing media , who are also quite good at making crap up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if the original post was meant to be sarcastic or anything, but after looking at the actualy law, it states NOTHING about coffee, radio, A/C.Either that or they work for the right-wing media, who are also quite good at making crap up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895503</id>
	<title>Re:Correct. The summary should be tagged "troll"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, this idea that when you reach 40 you realize that younger drivers are bad is ridiculous.</p><p>I'm 28 and I consider myself a very good driver. I've always been courteous to others on the road and careful with pedestrians/cyclists, etc.</p><p>On the other hand, 'older' drivers are not angels on the road. I don't know how many times I've almost been run over by some 40+ guy in a business suit because he was late to work. Or, cases of road rage where a driver in the fast lane drives 80km/h on the high way and slams the brakes just to scare the guy that's tailgating him and signalling him to change lanes and let people through.</p><p>Age has nothing to do with how people drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , this idea that when you reach 40 you realize that younger drivers are bad is ridiculous.I 'm 28 and I consider myself a very good driver .
I 've always been courteous to others on the road and careful with pedestrians/cyclists , etc.On the other hand , 'older ' drivers are not angels on the road .
I do n't know how many times I 've almost been run over by some 40 + guy in a business suit because he was late to work .
Or , cases of road rage where a driver in the fast lane drives 80km/h on the high way and slams the brakes just to scare the guy that 's tailgating him and signalling him to change lanes and let people through.Age has nothing to do with how people drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, this idea that when you reach 40 you realize that younger drivers are bad is ridiculous.I'm 28 and I consider myself a very good driver.
I've always been courteous to others on the road and careful with pedestrians/cyclists, etc.On the other hand, 'older' drivers are not angels on the road.
I don't know how many times I've almost been run over by some 40+ guy in a business suit because he was late to work.
Or, cases of road rage where a driver in the fast lane drives 80km/h on the high way and slams the brakes just to scare the guy that's tailgating him and signalling him to change lanes and let people through.Age has nothing to do with how people drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895367</id>
	<title>Re:Correct. The summary should be tagged "troll"</title>
	<author>NIK282000</author>
	<datestamp>1256735100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article I linked to talks only about handheld devices but the law does extend to any activity that takes your hands off the wheel. If you are in an accident and you were eating your McMuffin the charge will be added on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article I linked to talks only about handheld devices but the law does extend to any activity that takes your hands off the wheel .
If you are in an accident and you were eating your McMuffin the charge will be added on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article I linked to talks only about handheld devices but the law does extend to any activity that takes your hands off the wheel.
If you are in an accident and you were eating your McMuffin the charge will be added on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894729</id>
	<title>What A Bunch Of Hosers, Eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256729040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going back in my hoose to write a letter to those hosers in my local parilment aboot this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going back in my hoose to write a letter to those hosers in my local parilment aboot this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going back in my hoose to write a letter to those hosers in my local parilment aboot this!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895061</id>
	<title>Further link</title>
	<author>twoshortplanks</author>
	<datestamp>1256732640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More details here: <a href="http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills\_detail.do?locale=en&amp;Intranet=&amp;BillID=2099" title="ontla.on.ca">http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills\_detail.do?locale=en&amp;Intranet=&amp;BillID=2099</a> [ontla.on.ca]</htmltext>
<tokenext>More details here : http : //www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills \ _detail.do ? locale = en&amp;Intranet = &amp;BillID = 2099 [ ontla.on.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More details here: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills\_detail.do?locale=en&amp;Intranet=&amp;BillID=2099 [ontla.on.ca]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899625</id>
	<title>What you talkin' 'bout mr willis?</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1256754420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I see, it's "handheld devices" that are banned. The car radio/gps/etc. are not handheld, and coffee isn't a device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I see , it 's " handheld devices " that are banned .
The car radio/gps/etc .
are not handheld , and coffee is n't a device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I see, it's "handheld devices" that are banned.
The car radio/gps/etc.
are not handheld, and coffee isn't a device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896925</id>
	<title>Other things that fall under that standard:</title>
	<author>zizzybaloobah</author>
	<datestamp>1256743200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many cars require you take your hand off the wheel to do the following:</p><ul>
<li>Activating the turn signal</li>
<li>Activating the hazard signal</li>
<li>Activating the emergency brake</li>
<li>Activating the wipers (front or rear)</li>
<li>Activating the window defroster (front or rear)</li>
</ul><p>God forbid if there's a cop nearby when it starts pouring rain, near dusk, and you have a lot of mouth breathers in your car fogging up the windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many cars require you take your hand off the wheel to do the following : Activating the turn signal Activating the hazard signal Activating the emergency brake Activating the wipers ( front or rear ) Activating the window defroster ( front or rear ) God forbid if there 's a cop nearby when it starts pouring rain , near dusk , and you have a lot of mouth breathers in your car fogging up the windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many cars require you take your hand off the wheel to do the following:
Activating the turn signal
Activating the hazard signal
Activating the emergency brake
Activating the wipers (front or rear)
Activating the window defroster (front or rear)
God forbid if there's a cop nearby when it starts pouring rain, near dusk, and you have a lot of mouth breathers in your car fogging up the windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898523</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1256749620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>uh, video cameras?  If someone is weaving all over the road, or almost rear-ending people at turns and stoplights, they need to be fined or taken off the roads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>uh , video cameras ?
If someone is weaving all over the road , or almost rear-ending people at turns and stoplights , they need to be fined or taken off the roads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uh, video cameras?
If someone is weaving all over the road, or almost rear-ending people at turns and stoplights, they need to be fined or taken off the roads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1256736540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is all well and good -- but unfortunately the real world is not so idealistic. You see, most people have these things called 'jobs', and often these so-called 'jobs' require people to work on very tight schedules. To comply with these schedules some people must do some crazy things some times, like take their cup of coffee to go on the way to work.<p><div class="quote"><p>How do you change gear?</p></div><p>

Well, you see, most cars coming out nowadays have something called an 'automatic transmission'. The car actually changes gears for you! I know, I know, this sounds like science fiction, but it's true. These new future cars also have these things called cup holders, which will literally hold your cup for you! That will leave both of your hands completely, 100\% unburdened by your coffee until you find a good time to take a sip! Wow!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all well and good -- but unfortunately the real world is not so idealistic .
You see , most people have these things called 'jobs ' , and often these so-called 'jobs ' require people to work on very tight schedules .
To comply with these schedules some people must do some crazy things some times , like take their cup of coffee to go on the way to work.How do you change gear ?
Well , you see , most cars coming out nowadays have something called an 'automatic transmission' .
The car actually changes gears for you !
I know , I know , this sounds like science fiction , but it 's true .
These new future cars also have these things called cup holders , which will literally hold your cup for you !
That will leave both of your hands completely , 100 \ % unburdened by your coffee until you find a good time to take a sip !
Wow !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all well and good -- but unfortunately the real world is not so idealistic.
You see, most people have these things called 'jobs', and often these so-called 'jobs' require people to work on very tight schedules.
To comply with these schedules some people must do some crazy things some times, like take their cup of coffee to go on the way to work.How do you change gear?
Well, you see, most cars coming out nowadays have something called an 'automatic transmission'.
The car actually changes gears for you!
I know, I know, this sounds like science fiction, but it's true.
These new future cars also have these things called cup holders, which will literally hold your cup for you!
That will leave both of your hands completely, 100\% unburdened by your coffee until you find a good time to take a sip!
Wow!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895113</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256733060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is no different than if someone carelessly shoots a gun off without aiming or caring where it is pointing. Only luck prevents something bad happening.</p></div><p>I totally agree. Many fatalities are preventable. If everyone would inspect their cars daily, and properly maintain their cars, it would reduce dangerous accidents due to automotive failures on the road. And since we all know that speed is involved in accidents, anyone caught speeding, even just a single mile per hour, should be put in jail. The only difference between a speeder and a fatality caused by a speed-related accident is luck. This is no different than handing out loaded revolvers to children in a preschool.</p><p>Another primary cause of accidents is lack of attention while travelling. Many accidents can be avoided by alert, and focused drivers. Every time you get on the road, you should have to demonstrate that you are sober, have slept at least 8 hours in the last day, and have no other distractions in your life. How can you possibly be a safe traveleler, if, say, your wife is in labor, or a relative has just been rushed to the emergency room? This sort of thing should be illegal because it is wreckless and endagers other people's lives. It would be the same thing as walking down the street, closing your eyes, and randomly discharging a firearm. Only luck is the difference.</p><p>This should apply to all types of travellers, be they motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians. Pedestrians can also cause accidents also, and it is unfair to put other people and their property at risk. To do so would be exactly the same thing as running down the street and pushing people into traffic.</p><p>&lt;/extreme sarcasm&gt;</p><p>Dude, get over yourself and get off your high horse. Life comes with risks. The most you can hope for is that people try and act responsibly most of the time. No amount of grandstanding or legal intervention will prevent everyone from doing something marginally risky some of the time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is no different than if someone carelessly shoots a gun off without aiming or caring where it is pointing .
Only luck prevents something bad happening.I totally agree .
Many fatalities are preventable .
If everyone would inspect their cars daily , and properly maintain their cars , it would reduce dangerous accidents due to automotive failures on the road .
And since we all know that speed is involved in accidents , anyone caught speeding , even just a single mile per hour , should be put in jail .
The only difference between a speeder and a fatality caused by a speed-related accident is luck .
This is no different than handing out loaded revolvers to children in a preschool.Another primary cause of accidents is lack of attention while travelling .
Many accidents can be avoided by alert , and focused drivers .
Every time you get on the road , you should have to demonstrate that you are sober , have slept at least 8 hours in the last day , and have no other distractions in your life .
How can you possibly be a safe traveleler , if , say , your wife is in labor , or a relative has just been rushed to the emergency room ?
This sort of thing should be illegal because it is wreckless and endagers other people 's lives .
It would be the same thing as walking down the street , closing your eyes , and randomly discharging a firearm .
Only luck is the difference.This should apply to all types of travellers , be they motorists , bicyclists or pedestrians .
Pedestrians can also cause accidents also , and it is unfair to put other people and their property at risk .
To do so would be exactly the same thing as running down the street and pushing people into traffic.Dude , get over yourself and get off your high horse .
Life comes with risks .
The most you can hope for is that people try and act responsibly most of the time .
No amount of grandstanding or legal intervention will prevent everyone from doing something marginally risky some of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is no different than if someone carelessly shoots a gun off without aiming or caring where it is pointing.
Only luck prevents something bad happening.I totally agree.
Many fatalities are preventable.
If everyone would inspect their cars daily, and properly maintain their cars, it would reduce dangerous accidents due to automotive failures on the road.
And since we all know that speed is involved in accidents, anyone caught speeding, even just a single mile per hour, should be put in jail.
The only difference between a speeder and a fatality caused by a speed-related accident is luck.
This is no different than handing out loaded revolvers to children in a preschool.Another primary cause of accidents is lack of attention while travelling.
Many accidents can be avoided by alert, and focused drivers.
Every time you get on the road, you should have to demonstrate that you are sober, have slept at least 8 hours in the last day, and have no other distractions in your life.
How can you possibly be a safe traveleler, if, say, your wife is in labor, or a relative has just been rushed to the emergency room?
This sort of thing should be illegal because it is wreckless and endagers other people's lives.
It would be the same thing as walking down the street, closing your eyes, and randomly discharging a firearm.
Only luck is the difference.This should apply to all types of travellers, be they motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians.
Pedestrians can also cause accidents also, and it is unfair to put other people and their property at risk.
To do so would be exactly the same thing as running down the street and pushing people into traffic.Dude, get over yourself and get off your high horse.
Life comes with risks.
The most you can hope for is that people try and act responsibly most of the time.
No amount of grandstanding or legal intervention will prevent everyone from doing something marginally risky some of the time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815</id>
	<title>Terrible Summary</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1256729940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good gawd, that summary is terrible. To say it's not even vaguely accurate is an understatement. The list of what is and what is not allowed is available <a href="http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/news/statements/stat081028-chart.pdf" title="gov.on.ca">here</a> [gov.on.ca].<br> <br>
Copy/pasting for those not interested in downloading the pdf:<br> <br>
What would not be allowed while driving, unless the vehicle is pulled off the roadway or lawfully parked<br>
* Hand-held wireless communications devices such as cell phones, smartphones<br>
* Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods, or other portable MP3 players, or portable games<br>
* Texting and emailing<br>
* Viewing display screens on devices not required for driving such as a laptop or DVD player<br> <br>
What would be allowed while driving<br>
* Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device<br>
* 911 calls<br>
* Pressing the button of a hand-held device to activate hands-free mode for incoming or outbound calls<br>
* GPS units mounted on dashboards<br>
* Collision avoidance systems<br>
* Use by emergency services personnel such as police, fire and ambulance<br>
* Logistical transportation tracking devices used for commercial vehicles</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good gawd , that summary is terrible .
To say it 's not even vaguely accurate is an understatement .
The list of what is and what is not allowed is available here [ gov.on.ca ] .
Copy/pasting for those not interested in downloading the pdf : What would not be allowed while driving , unless the vehicle is pulled off the roadway or lawfully parked * Hand-held wireless communications devices such as cell phones , smartphones * Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods , or other portable MP3 players , or portable games * Texting and emailing * Viewing display screens on devices not required for driving such as a laptop or DVD player What would be allowed while driving * Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device * 911 calls * Pressing the button of a hand-held device to activate hands-free mode for incoming or outbound calls * GPS units mounted on dashboards * Collision avoidance systems * Use by emergency services personnel such as police , fire and ambulance * Logistical transportation tracking devices used for commercial vehicles</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good gawd, that summary is terrible.
To say it's not even vaguely accurate is an understatement.
The list of what is and what is not allowed is available here [gov.on.ca].
Copy/pasting for those not interested in downloading the pdf: 
What would not be allowed while driving, unless the vehicle is pulled off the roadway or lawfully parked
* Hand-held wireless communications devices such as cell phones, smartphones
* Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods, or other portable MP3 players, or portable games
* Texting and emailing
* Viewing display screens on devices not required for driving such as a laptop or DVD player 
What would be allowed while driving
* Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device
* 911 calls
* Pressing the button of a hand-held device to activate hands-free mode for incoming or outbound calls
* GPS units mounted on dashboards
* Collision avoidance systems
* Use by emergency services personnel such as police, fire and ambulance
* Logistical transportation tracking devices used for commercial vehicles</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29901305</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256761320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Automatic Transmissions are not the majority everywhere.  Are you suggesting that they should be mandatory?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Automatic Transmissions are not the majority everywhere .
Are you suggesting that they should be mandatory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Automatic Transmissions are not the majority everywhere.
Are you suggesting that they should be mandatory?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896087</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256739780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC?</i></p><p>No, absolutely not! BC and Alberta have legislation on deck, but not implemented. Newfoundland was one of the first provinces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC ? No , absolutely not !
BC and Alberta have legislation on deck , but not implemented .
Newfoundland was one of the first provinces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC?No, absolutely not!
BC and Alberta have legislation on deck, but not implemented.
Newfoundland was one of the first provinces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896179</id>
	<title>Auto transmissions should be mandatory.</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1256740320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in the UK and I cannot understand why anybody would want a manual transmission on our congested roads. Of course our fuel costs more, but the latest autos are automated manual transmissions and actually do better on fuel mileage than manuals. I've driven both (usually through being stuck in Europe with a manual hire car) and I feel considerably safer in the auto. It's one less thing to think about, and after all the manual transmission is not a design feature - it's a failure, a technological throwback to the pre-cybernetic era. Having watched morons take both hands off the wheel to change gear too often, I think I would actually go so far as to ban all mobile phone use by drivers in moving manual transmission cars, and all GPS use in manuals unless there is a passenger to operate it, and legislate to phase out manual transmissions on road vehicles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in the UK and I can not understand why anybody would want a manual transmission on our congested roads .
Of course our fuel costs more , but the latest autos are automated manual transmissions and actually do better on fuel mileage than manuals .
I 've driven both ( usually through being stuck in Europe with a manual hire car ) and I feel considerably safer in the auto .
It 's one less thing to think about , and after all the manual transmission is not a design feature - it 's a failure , a technological throwback to the pre-cybernetic era .
Having watched morons take both hands off the wheel to change gear too often , I think I would actually go so far as to ban all mobile phone use by drivers in moving manual transmission cars , and all GPS use in manuals unless there is a passenger to operate it , and legislate to phase out manual transmissions on road vehicles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in the UK and I cannot understand why anybody would want a manual transmission on our congested roads.
Of course our fuel costs more, but the latest autos are automated manual transmissions and actually do better on fuel mileage than manuals.
I've driven both (usually through being stuck in Europe with a manual hire car) and I feel considerably safer in the auto.
It's one less thing to think about, and after all the manual transmission is not a design feature - it's a failure, a technological throwback to the pre-cybernetic era.
Having watched morons take both hands off the wheel to change gear too often, I think I would actually go so far as to ban all mobile phone use by drivers in moving manual transmission cars, and all GPS use in manuals unless there is a passenger to operate it, and legislate to phase out manual transmissions on road vehicles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895229</id>
	<title>Re:And In Related News:</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1256733900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a more positive note, a woman in Australia was recently <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/20/2718978.htm" title="abc.net.au">convicted</a> [abc.net.au] under new laws that make it a crime to smoke in a car with children present.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a more positive note , a woman in Australia was recently convicted [ abc.net.au ] under new laws that make it a crime to smoke in a car with children present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a more positive note, a woman in Australia was recently convicted [abc.net.au] under new laws that make it a crime to smoke in a car with children present.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896083</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1256739780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If an angry badger lunges at you because you're distracted at Slashdot at your desk, precisely one person gets hurt - you, the participant.</p><p>If you're trying to text someone, make a phone call, or whatever, and you stray across the line and hit the motorcyclist coming the other way, you've just killed or injured someone else.</p><p>Think!<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDOmwjgKBcI" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDOmwjgKBcI</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If an angry badger lunges at you because you 're distracted at Slashdot at your desk , precisely one person gets hurt - you , the participant.If you 're trying to text someone , make a phone call , or whatever , and you stray across the line and hit the motorcyclist coming the other way , you 've just killed or injured someone else.Think ! http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = pDOmwjgKBcI [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If an angry badger lunges at you because you're distracted at Slashdot at your desk, precisely one person gets hurt - you, the participant.If you're trying to text someone, make a phone call, or whatever, and you stray across the line and hit the motorcyclist coming the other way, you've just killed or injured someone else.Think!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDOmwjgKBcI [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29901121</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256760480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How do you change gear?</p><p>Staying in first gear is not unusual. Many old folks drive that way, or at least seem to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How do you change gear ? Staying in first gear is not unusual .
Many old folks drive that way , or at least seem to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How do you change gear?Staying in first gear is not unusual.
Many old folks drive that way, or at least seem to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896027</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1256739480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, well, coffee isn't a "handheld electronic device with a readable screen" so the law doesn't apply, even through the submitter said so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  Must be a fucking awesome cup of coffee!  Yeah, note that dashmount GPS devices aren't hand-held either.  If it's not in your hand, you can use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , well , coffee is n't a " handheld electronic device with a readable screen " so the law does n't apply , even through the submitter said so ; ) Must be a fucking awesome cup of coffee !
Yeah , note that dashmount GPS devices are n't hand-held either .
If it 's not in your hand , you can use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, well, coffee isn't a "handheld electronic device with a readable screen" so the law doesn't apply, even through the submitter said so ;)  Must be a fucking awesome cup of coffee!
Yeah, note that dashmount GPS devices aren't hand-held either.
If it's not in your hand, you can use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894721</id>
	<title>Correct. The summary should be tagged "troll"</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1256728920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary is totally misleading. I have yet to see a car with handheld climate control, and any decent modern car has built in radio and media player. Ontario has not banned built-in or dashboard-attached GPS.<p>On the other hand there is a lot of evidence that using handheld devices while driving is dangerous, and in our rather busier UK traffic anybody drinking coffee while driving is a risk to everybody else.</p><p>However the summary and some of the responses show part of a trend. "Libertarianism" translating as "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, but stop those other idiots". Once you reach the age of 40 it becomes apparent that young drivers are crap and greatly overestimate their skills and their road attentiveness. As a colleague of mind once remarked "when I think how I used to drive when i was younger and put my family at risk, my blood runs cold". I expect lots of posts here slagging off Ontario, but they are right - and remember kids, you can't post a retraction to Slashdot from the cemetary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is totally misleading .
I have yet to see a car with handheld climate control , and any decent modern car has built in radio and media player .
Ontario has not banned built-in or dashboard-attached GPS.On the other hand there is a lot of evidence that using handheld devices while driving is dangerous , and in our rather busier UK traffic anybody drinking coffee while driving is a risk to everybody else.However the summary and some of the responses show part of a trend .
" Libertarianism " translating as " I should be allowed to do whatever I want , but stop those other idiots " .
Once you reach the age of 40 it becomes apparent that young drivers are crap and greatly overestimate their skills and their road attentiveness .
As a colleague of mind once remarked " when I think how I used to drive when i was younger and put my family at risk , my blood runs cold " .
I expect lots of posts here slagging off Ontario , but they are right - and remember kids , you ca n't post a retraction to Slashdot from the cemetary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is totally misleading.
I have yet to see a car with handheld climate control, and any decent modern car has built in radio and media player.
Ontario has not banned built-in or dashboard-attached GPS.On the other hand there is a lot of evidence that using handheld devices while driving is dangerous, and in our rather busier UK traffic anybody drinking coffee while driving is a risk to everybody else.However the summary and some of the responses show part of a trend.
"Libertarianism" translating as "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, but stop those other idiots".
Once you reach the age of 40 it becomes apparent that young drivers are crap and greatly overestimate their skills and their road attentiveness.
As a colleague of mind once remarked "when I think how I used to drive when i was younger and put my family at risk, my blood runs cold".
I expect lots of posts here slagging off Ontario, but they are right - and remember kids, you can't post a retraction to Slashdot from the cemetary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899403</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>freeweed</author>
	<datestamp>1256753640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alberta has no cellphone ban of any sort in vehicles (yet).</p><p>Not sure why this would be modded Informative when it's at least 50\% wrong.</p><p>That being said, I'm looking forward to the day Alberta DOES ban it - and hopefully finally gets it right, banning all cell use not just handheld. If using your hand was the problem, manual transmission cars would be illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alberta has no cellphone ban of any sort in vehicles ( yet ) .Not sure why this would be modded Informative when it 's at least 50 \ % wrong.That being said , I 'm looking forward to the day Alberta DOES ban it - and hopefully finally gets it right , banning all cell use not just handheld .
If using your hand was the problem , manual transmission cars would be illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alberta has no cellphone ban of any sort in vehicles (yet).Not sure why this would be modded Informative when it's at least 50\% wrong.That being said, I'm looking forward to the day Alberta DOES ban it - and hopefully finally gets it right, banning all cell use not just handheld.
If using your hand was the problem, manual transmission cars would be illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895969</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1256739300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can still have your fair hearing and due process if you get a traffic ticket, at least in Ontario. It's not a summary judgment. The difference between the hands-free law, and the Careless law, is that the Careless law has jail time and a license suspension as the maximum penalty, where the hands-free law is probably a fine and maybe some demerit points.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can still have your fair hearing and due process if you get a traffic ticket , at least in Ontario .
It 's not a summary judgment .
The difference between the hands-free law , and the Careless law , is that the Careless law has jail time and a license suspension as the maximum penalty , where the hands-free law is probably a fine and maybe some demerit points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can still have your fair hearing and due process if you get a traffic ticket, at least in Ontario.
It's not a summary judgment.
The difference between the hands-free law, and the Careless law, is that the Careless law has jail time and a license suspension as the maximum penalty, where the hands-free law is probably a fine and maybe some demerit points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902807</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1256725380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that isn't the question at hand. And if you are willing to give up that right, what else are you wiling to give up? Where is your line?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that is n't the question at hand .
And if you are willing to give up that right , what else are you wiling to give up ?
Where is your line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that isn't the question at hand.
And if you are willing to give up that right, what else are you wiling to give up?
Where is your line?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895463</id>
	<title>So where does ham radio fit in here?</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1256735880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most countries regulate amateur radio at a federal level, not a state level.  So I wonder if these new laws implicitly exempt ham radio operation?</p><p>We have something similar in many states in the US in that it's illegal to operate a cellphone in a school zone.  Again, I've never seen an exception to ham radio (federally-regulated in the US), so it would appear to me that regulations like these have no effect on federal mandates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most countries regulate amateur radio at a federal level , not a state level .
So I wonder if these new laws implicitly exempt ham radio operation ? We have something similar in many states in the US in that it 's illegal to operate a cellphone in a school zone .
Again , I 've never seen an exception to ham radio ( federally-regulated in the US ) , so it would appear to me that regulations like these have no effect on federal mandates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most countries regulate amateur radio at a federal level, not a state level.
So I wonder if these new laws implicitly exempt ham radio operation?We have something similar in many states in the US in that it's illegal to operate a cellphone in a school zone.
Again, I've never seen an exception to ham radio (federally-regulated in the US), so it would appear to me that regulations like these have no effect on federal mandates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899519</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Rakishi</author>
	<datestamp>1256754060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I passed my test, the first thing I did was drive on a motorway and light up a cigarette. Only to hear a loud horn and realise I was drifting into the other lane. I understand this could have been fatal and this has helped me realise the seriousness of doing ANYTHING whilst driving. Since then I avoid smoking and driving. Although I don't agree, maybe smoking and changing radio stations should be tested too (if so many people do this anyway)?</p></div><p>In other words you drove on a road you weren't ready for and are blaming cigarettes for your inherent lack of driving skill. I had my license for three months before I even considered going on the highway alone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I passed my test , the first thing I did was drive on a motorway and light up a cigarette .
Only to hear a loud horn and realise I was drifting into the other lane .
I understand this could have been fatal and this has helped me realise the seriousness of doing ANYTHING whilst driving .
Since then I avoid smoking and driving .
Although I do n't agree , maybe smoking and changing radio stations should be tested too ( if so many people do this anyway ) ? In other words you drove on a road you were n't ready for and are blaming cigarettes for your inherent lack of driving skill .
I had my license for three months before I even considered going on the highway alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I passed my test, the first thing I did was drive on a motorway and light up a cigarette.
Only to hear a loud horn and realise I was drifting into the other lane.
I understand this could have been fatal and this has helped me realise the seriousness of doing ANYTHING whilst driving.
Since then I avoid smoking and driving.
Although I don't agree, maybe smoking and changing radio stations should be tested too (if so many people do this anyway)?In other words you drove on a road you weren't ready for and are blaming cigarettes for your inherent lack of driving skill.
I had my license for three months before I even considered going on the highway alone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896875</id>
	<title>Re:Stick</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1256743020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary is wrong, the law (probably, nothing is certain in the law) can't be enforced to get people for changing the controls on your dashboard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is wrong , the law ( probably , nothing is certain in the law ) ca n't be enforced to get people for changing the controls on your dashboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is wrong, the law (probably, nothing is certain in the law) can't be enforced to get people for changing the controls on your dashboard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895951</id>
	<title>Manual drivers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256739240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are people who drive manuals? I think that changing gears might require you to take a hand off the wheel. Is that a fine too? And what is the difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are people who drive manuals ?
I think that changing gears might require you to take a hand off the wheel .
Is that a fine too ?
And what is the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are people who drive manuals?
I think that changing gears might require you to take a hand off the wheel.
Is that a fine too?
And what is the difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895311</id>
	<title>Re:And In Related News:</title>
	<author>smartin</author>
	<datestamp>1256734500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and you can breath ok as long as no one unplugs the machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and you can breath ok as long as no one unplugs the machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and you can breath ok as long as no one unplugs the machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896219</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1256740500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm. That's not going to work since you can appear scary without actually being careless.  If cops could ticket for appearing scary I'd have no license.   I don't cell and drive and don't text at all, but I have been repeatedly pulled over for suspected DUI when completely sober ( I don't drink and drive either ).  Under 'Appearing to be a bad driver' laws I'd still get a ticket.
</p><p>And I've been driving for years and NEVER been in an accident that was my fault and the only accident I WAS in was over a decade ago while I was parked.
</p><p>If you have determined a path from here to there that is safe and legal and you remain within that path, you shouldn't also need to do it 'with style'.  Getting from point A to point B without breaking the law or getting in a smashup should be good enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm .
That 's not going to work since you can appear scary without actually being careless .
If cops could ticket for appearing scary I 'd have no license .
I do n't cell and drive and do n't text at all , but I have been repeatedly pulled over for suspected DUI when completely sober ( I do n't drink and drive either ) .
Under 'Appearing to be a bad driver ' laws I 'd still get a ticket .
And I 've been driving for years and NEVER been in an accident that was my fault and the only accident I WAS in was over a decade ago while I was parked .
If you have determined a path from here to there that is safe and legal and you remain within that path , you should n't also need to do it 'with style' .
Getting from point A to point B without breaking the law or getting in a smashup should be good enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.
That's not going to work since you can appear scary without actually being careless.
If cops could ticket for appearing scary I'd have no license.
I don't cell and drive and don't text at all, but I have been repeatedly pulled over for suspected DUI when completely sober ( I don't drink and drive either ).
Under 'Appearing to be a bad driver' laws I'd still get a ticket.
And I've been driving for years and NEVER been in an accident that was my fault and the only accident I WAS in was over a decade ago while I was parked.
If you have determined a path from here to there that is safe and legal and you remain within that path, you shouldn't also need to do it 'with style'.
Getting from point A to point B without breaking the law or getting in a smashup should be good enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896729</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1256742480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This law has nothing to do with drinking coffee while driving, despite what the summary says. It's specifically targeted and hand-held electronics devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This law has nothing to do with drinking coffee while driving , despite what the summary says .
It 's specifically targeted and hand-held electronics devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This law has nothing to do with drinking coffee while driving, despite what the summary says.
It's specifically targeted and hand-held electronics devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895871</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Dr. Hellno</author>
	<datestamp>1256738820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand and respect your perspective; nobody likes to feel that they're being endangered by the decisions of others which are beyond their control. I'm against this law, but that's because driving while listening to music is one of my great joys in life, and I'm not eager for it to be taken away. Honestly I really expected that opinion to be in the majority, but then again it's 9 am here in ontario; all the other young people are probably still asleep<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br> <br>
I do have another concern with this law though: I foresee a specific unintended consequence. When I drive now, if I want to change the song on my mp3 player I raise it to the top of the wheel so that I can keep an eye on the road, glance instantaneously between the screen and anything else, and so that if a situation arises I can just drop the player and my hand is already on the wheel. Most of the other students I know do the same thing. But with the specter of a 500$ fine now looming over our heads, the incentive is towards keeping such devices low, under the steering wheel, where they'd be harder to see from the outside. Of course the intention is that the devices won't be used at all, but that's not realistic. Many people will hold them below the wheel, where glancing at the screen more fully diverts their attention from the road and where it's more difficult to grasp the wheel in an emergency.<br> <br>
So I see your perspective, and I understand your obvious anger at people who drive in ways that can be distracting. But I think we need to realistically consider what the effects of this law will be. I'm reminded of an anecdote about the ignition-interlock system: an alcoholic father my family used to know had the system installed, which only led to him bringing his young son along while he drove drunk in order to feed the breathalyzer.<br> <br> Only time will tell, I suppose, and I certainly hope for the best. Personally, I'm going to drive how I always have, because in the face of the uncertainty of life I'm not willing to give up one of my great pleasures for a tiny extra margin of safety. But I won't further sacrifice my safety and that of others just to dodge a fine. I hope that for that, at least, the fates take mercy on me and my wallet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand and respect your perspective ; nobody likes to feel that they 're being endangered by the decisions of others which are beyond their control .
I 'm against this law , but that 's because driving while listening to music is one of my great joys in life , and I 'm not eager for it to be taken away .
Honestly I really expected that opinion to be in the majority , but then again it 's 9 am here in ontario ; all the other young people are probably still asleep : ) I do have another concern with this law though : I foresee a specific unintended consequence .
When I drive now , if I want to change the song on my mp3 player I raise it to the top of the wheel so that I can keep an eye on the road , glance instantaneously between the screen and anything else , and so that if a situation arises I can just drop the player and my hand is already on the wheel .
Most of the other students I know do the same thing .
But with the specter of a 500 $ fine now looming over our heads , the incentive is towards keeping such devices low , under the steering wheel , where they 'd be harder to see from the outside .
Of course the intention is that the devices wo n't be used at all , but that 's not realistic .
Many people will hold them below the wheel , where glancing at the screen more fully diverts their attention from the road and where it 's more difficult to grasp the wheel in an emergency .
So I see your perspective , and I understand your obvious anger at people who drive in ways that can be distracting .
But I think we need to realistically consider what the effects of this law will be .
I 'm reminded of an anecdote about the ignition-interlock system : an alcoholic father my family used to know had the system installed , which only led to him bringing his young son along while he drove drunk in order to feed the breathalyzer .
Only time will tell , I suppose , and I certainly hope for the best .
Personally , I 'm going to drive how I always have , because in the face of the uncertainty of life I 'm not willing to give up one of my great pleasures for a tiny extra margin of safety .
But I wo n't further sacrifice my safety and that of others just to dodge a fine .
I hope that for that , at least , the fates take mercy on me and my wallet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand and respect your perspective; nobody likes to feel that they're being endangered by the decisions of others which are beyond their control.
I'm against this law, but that's because driving while listening to music is one of my great joys in life, and I'm not eager for it to be taken away.
Honestly I really expected that opinion to be in the majority, but then again it's 9 am here in ontario; all the other young people are probably still asleep :) 
I do have another concern with this law though: I foresee a specific unintended consequence.
When I drive now, if I want to change the song on my mp3 player I raise it to the top of the wheel so that I can keep an eye on the road, glance instantaneously between the screen and anything else, and so that if a situation arises I can just drop the player and my hand is already on the wheel.
Most of the other students I know do the same thing.
But with the specter of a 500$ fine now looming over our heads, the incentive is towards keeping such devices low, under the steering wheel, where they'd be harder to see from the outside.
Of course the intention is that the devices won't be used at all, but that's not realistic.
Many people will hold them below the wheel, where glancing at the screen more fully diverts their attention from the road and where it's more difficult to grasp the wheel in an emergency.
So I see your perspective, and I understand your obvious anger at people who drive in ways that can be distracting.
But I think we need to realistically consider what the effects of this law will be.
I'm reminded of an anecdote about the ignition-interlock system: an alcoholic father my family used to know had the system installed, which only led to him bringing his young son along while he drove drunk in order to feed the breathalyzer.
Only time will tell, I suppose, and I certainly hope for the best.
Personally, I'm going to drive how I always have, because in the face of the uncertainty of life I'm not willing to give up one of my great pleasures for a tiny extra margin of safety.
But I won't further sacrifice my safety and that of others just to dodge a fine.
I hope that for that, at least, the fates take mercy on me and my wallet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898277</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>webdog314</author>
	<datestamp>1256748660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not saying that I disagree with you, but your analogy is seriously broken. It might work if instead of counting "gross total or per-capita population or per-capita car-owner/gun-owner" you counted it as gross total per-capita car ride/gun shot.  As you have it, it's like saying that simply having a gun could make you dangerous, or the other way, simply having a car could make you a bad driver.  Nether is true.  If I shoot my gun, there is the potential for someone to be hit accidentally, and if I go for a ride in my car, there is the potential that I could get in an accident.  Comparing them that way, I think it would be a lot harder to say that the gun is safer.  Of course, the analogy is flawed in another way as well.  A car is not created with the sole purpose of killing something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not saying that I disagree with you , but your analogy is seriously broken .
It might work if instead of counting " gross total or per-capita population or per-capita car-owner/gun-owner " you counted it as gross total per-capita car ride/gun shot .
As you have it , it 's like saying that simply having a gun could make you dangerous , or the other way , simply having a car could make you a bad driver .
Nether is true .
If I shoot my gun , there is the potential for someone to be hit accidentally , and if I go for a ride in my car , there is the potential that I could get in an accident .
Comparing them that way , I think it would be a lot harder to say that the gun is safer .
Of course , the analogy is flawed in another way as well .
A car is not created with the sole purpose of killing something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not saying that I disagree with you, but your analogy is seriously broken.
It might work if instead of counting "gross total or per-capita population or per-capita car-owner/gun-owner" you counted it as gross total per-capita car ride/gun shot.
As you have it, it's like saying that simply having a gun could make you dangerous, or the other way, simply having a car could make you a bad driver.
Nether is true.
If I shoot my gun, there is the potential for someone to be hit accidentally, and if I go for a ride in my car, there is the potential that I could get in an accident.
Comparing them that way, I think it would be a lot harder to say that the gun is safer.
Of course, the analogy is flawed in another way as well.
A car is not created with the sole purpose of killing something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902053</id>
	<title>Summary is ridiculously bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It applies to handheld electronic devices, thus:</p><p>"because it is now also a $500 fine to change your radio station"<br>No.  Not on the car's built-in system.</p><p>"change songs on your MP3 player"<br>Yes.  If a handheld system.</p><p>"or even drink your morning coffee."<br>No.  Not unless it's an electronic coffee cup<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>The province I'm in has a similar law that has been in effect for more than a year.  It's no big deal -- except for the idiots that I still see driving around while talking on their cell phone who apparently can't afford a headset.</p><p>It's like whoever wrote that summary couldn't figure out something as simple as the intersection of "handheld" and "electronic device".  I can think of only one logical reason: hey, dimbulb, stop trying to read legislation and submit slashdot summaries from your smartphone while driving!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It applies to handheld electronic devices , thus : " because it is now also a $ 500 fine to change your radio station " No .
Not on the car 's built-in system .
" change songs on your MP3 player " Yes .
If a handheld system .
" or even drink your morning coffee. " No .
Not unless it 's an electronic coffee cup : - ) The province I 'm in has a similar law that has been in effect for more than a year .
It 's no big deal -- except for the idiots that I still see driving around while talking on their cell phone who apparently ca n't afford a headset.It 's like whoever wrote that summary could n't figure out something as simple as the intersection of " handheld " and " electronic device " .
I can think of only one logical reason : hey , dimbulb , stop trying to read legislation and submit slashdot summaries from your smartphone while driving !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It applies to handheld electronic devices, thus:"because it is now also a $500 fine to change your radio station"No.
Not on the car's built-in system.
"change songs on your MP3 player"Yes.
If a handheld system.
"or even drink your morning coffee."No.
Not unless it's an electronic coffee cup :-)The province I'm in has a similar law that has been in effect for more than a year.
It's no big deal -- except for the idiots that I still see driving around while talking on their cell phone who apparently can't afford a headset.It's like whoever wrote that summary couldn't figure out something as simple as the intersection of "handheld" and "electronic device".
I can think of only one logical reason: hey, dimbulb, stop trying to read legislation and submit slashdot summaries from your smartphone while driving!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29906379</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>stine2469</author>
	<datestamp>1256748900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They still tailgate, at least the ones without the license plate-reading systems in their cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They still tailgate , at least the ones without the license plate-reading systems in their cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still tailgate, at least the ones without the license plate-reading systems in their cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895043</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256732460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck you imbecile. I don't say make these kind of generalizations about your province.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you imbecile .
I do n't say make these kind of generalizations about your province .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you imbecile.
I don't say make these kind of generalizations about your province.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896691</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256742300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modded as flamebait? Are you people fucking serious?</p><p>There are some people who disagree with the premise that 'this was a good idea'. Its a terrible idea. Driving a car is risky- if you can't deal with, stay in your basement.</p><p>Consider also- most crashes are avoidable with attentive defensive driving. How many of you people screaming about cellphones and radios have the first clue about safe driving in the first place. I find it a bit hard to believe that the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5\% of the people on the road that are safe drivers are the ones screaming on slashdot about invading peoples cars. You want to be safer on the road? It starts with YOU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modded as flamebait ?
Are you people fucking serious ? There are some people who disagree with the premise that 'this was a good idea' .
Its a terrible idea .
Driving a car is risky- if you ca n't deal with , stay in your basement.Consider also- most crashes are avoidable with attentive defensive driving .
How many of you people screaming about cellphones and radios have the first clue about safe driving in the first place .
I find it a bit hard to believe that the .5 \ % of the people on the road that are safe drivers are the ones screaming on slashdot about invading peoples cars .
You want to be safer on the road ?
It starts with YOU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modded as flamebait?
Are you people fucking serious?There are some people who disagree with the premise that 'this was a good idea'.
Its a terrible idea.
Driving a car is risky- if you can't deal with, stay in your basement.Consider also- most crashes are avoidable with attentive defensive driving.
How many of you people screaming about cellphones and radios have the first clue about safe driving in the first place.
I find it a bit hard to believe that the .5\% of the people on the road that are safe drivers are the ones screaming on slashdot about invading peoples cars.
You want to be safer on the road?
It starts with YOU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896567</id>
	<title>Seems poorly thought through</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1256741820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"it requires you to take your hands off the wheel"</p><p>Sucks if you drive a manual then. No changing gear for you!</p><p>Why are people in the position to make laws so small-brained? How do they fail to see the grand picture? Driving carelessly should already be an offense, changing GPS target or tweaking the stereo or heating/AC as your drive through a busy junction is already careless or dangerous driving! Doing it on a straight road with sparse traffic isn't, as the time your eyes are off the road in front of you is minimal and you'll have checked for relevant hazards.</p><p>On the other hand, modern cars have a lot of controls on the wheel itself, including gear change and stereo control. Wonder if this pretty much makes these "optional extras" mandatory in that state? Wonder if any car companies made a campaign contribution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" it requires you to take your hands off the wheel " Sucks if you drive a manual then .
No changing gear for you ! Why are people in the position to make laws so small-brained ?
How do they fail to see the grand picture ?
Driving carelessly should already be an offense , changing GPS target or tweaking the stereo or heating/AC as your drive through a busy junction is already careless or dangerous driving !
Doing it on a straight road with sparse traffic is n't , as the time your eyes are off the road in front of you is minimal and you 'll have checked for relevant hazards.On the other hand , modern cars have a lot of controls on the wheel itself , including gear change and stereo control .
Wonder if this pretty much makes these " optional extras " mandatory in that state ?
Wonder if any car companies made a campaign contribution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"it requires you to take your hands off the wheel"Sucks if you drive a manual then.
No changing gear for you!Why are people in the position to make laws so small-brained?
How do they fail to see the grand picture?
Driving carelessly should already be an offense, changing GPS target or tweaking the stereo or heating/AC as your drive through a busy junction is already careless or dangerous driving!
Doing it on a straight road with sparse traffic isn't, as the time your eyes are off the road in front of you is minimal and you'll have checked for relevant hazards.On the other hand, modern cars have a lot of controls on the wheel itself, including gear change and stereo control.
Wonder if this pretty much makes these "optional extras" mandatory in that state?
Wonder if any car companies made a campaign contribution?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895551</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>kannibal\_klown</author>
	<datestamp>1256736600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who on earth thinks drinking coffee while driving could ever be a good idea?</p><p>How do you change gear?</p></div><p>I agree with the sentiment: if you're driving a car that should be the only thing you're doing.  No drinking (even non-alcoholic), no gaming, no texting, etc.  The most I'll do is use my OnStar phone (press 1 button on the rear-view mirror and the rest is voice controlled) and <b>even then</b> only if it's absolutely necessary and only for a few seconds for a quick "I'm running late start the meeting without me" or "I'm going to the grocery, text me what you need."</p><p>As to gears...</p><p>I think changing gears a cultural / regional thing.</p><p>My friends in Europe tell me that most cars on the road there are manual / standard transmissions.</p><p>However here in the US I'd say a majority of cars have automatic.  Some popular cars here don't even offer a standard transmission, which is often reserved for both performance cars and cheaper cars.  With an automatic one only needs 1 foot and 1 hand to drive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who on earth thinks drinking coffee while driving could ever be a good idea ? How do you change gear ? I agree with the sentiment : if you 're driving a car that should be the only thing you 're doing .
No drinking ( even non-alcoholic ) , no gaming , no texting , etc .
The most I 'll do is use my OnStar phone ( press 1 button on the rear-view mirror and the rest is voice controlled ) and even then only if it 's absolutely necessary and only for a few seconds for a quick " I 'm running late start the meeting without me " or " I 'm going to the grocery , text me what you need .
" As to gears...I think changing gears a cultural / regional thing.My friends in Europe tell me that most cars on the road there are manual / standard transmissions.However here in the US I 'd say a majority of cars have automatic .
Some popular cars here do n't even offer a standard transmission , which is often reserved for both performance cars and cheaper cars .
With an automatic one only needs 1 foot and 1 hand to drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who on earth thinks drinking coffee while driving could ever be a good idea?How do you change gear?I agree with the sentiment: if you're driving a car that should be the only thing you're doing.
No drinking (even non-alcoholic), no gaming, no texting, etc.
The most I'll do is use my OnStar phone (press 1 button on the rear-view mirror and the rest is voice controlled) and even then only if it's absolutely necessary and only for a few seconds for a quick "I'm running late start the meeting without me" or "I'm going to the grocery, text me what you need.
"As to gears...I think changing gears a cultural / regional thing.My friends in Europe tell me that most cars on the road there are manual / standard transmissions.However here in the US I'd say a majority of cars have automatic.
Some popular cars here don't even offer a standard transmission, which is often reserved for both performance cars and cheaper cars.
With an automatic one only needs 1 foot and 1 hand to drive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894933</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256731500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what about people driving too close? D-I-S-TANCE is the key, yet it's not considered a really bad offence to tailgate. Even the police are guilty of doing this (i've seen them many times). In fact I would go as far to say that this is the largest cause of accidents followed by speed, then general state of mind (not concentrating on the job of driving - by any means - phone, radio ect). Tailgating also causes traffic jams.</p><p>It would be so easy to force all cars and lorries to have radar and use this to control the speed of the vehicle (as honda and others have been developing).</p><p>If people kept their distance then they would have time to change station, or take a bite of a sandwich. I'm not copnvinced with cigarettes or hot coffee though as this could cause a instinctive reaction thus causing the driver to suddenly brake or accelerate.</p><p>When I passed my test, the first thing I did was drive on a motorway and light up a cigarette. Only to hear a loud horn and realise I was drifting into the other lane. I understand this could have been fatal and this has helped me realise the seriousness of doing ANYTHING whilst driving. Since then I avoid smoking and driving. Although I don't agree, maybe smoking and changing radio stations should be tested too (if so many people do this anyway)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what about people driving too close ?
D-I-S-TANCE is the key , yet it 's not considered a really bad offence to tailgate .
Even the police are guilty of doing this ( i 've seen them many times ) .
In fact I would go as far to say that this is the largest cause of accidents followed by speed , then general state of mind ( not concentrating on the job of driving - by any means - phone , radio ect ) .
Tailgating also causes traffic jams.It would be so easy to force all cars and lorries to have radar and use this to control the speed of the vehicle ( as honda and others have been developing ) .If people kept their distance then they would have time to change station , or take a bite of a sandwich .
I 'm not copnvinced with cigarettes or hot coffee though as this could cause a instinctive reaction thus causing the driver to suddenly brake or accelerate.When I passed my test , the first thing I did was drive on a motorway and light up a cigarette .
Only to hear a loud horn and realise I was drifting into the other lane .
I understand this could have been fatal and this has helped me realise the seriousness of doing ANYTHING whilst driving .
Since then I avoid smoking and driving .
Although I do n't agree , maybe smoking and changing radio stations should be tested too ( if so many people do this anyway ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what about people driving too close?
D-I-S-TANCE is the key, yet it's not considered a really bad offence to tailgate.
Even the police are guilty of doing this (i've seen them many times).
In fact I would go as far to say that this is the largest cause of accidents followed by speed, then general state of mind (not concentrating on the job of driving - by any means - phone, radio ect).
Tailgating also causes traffic jams.It would be so easy to force all cars and lorries to have radar and use this to control the speed of the vehicle (as honda and others have been developing).If people kept their distance then they would have time to change station, or take a bite of a sandwich.
I'm not copnvinced with cigarettes or hot coffee though as this could cause a instinctive reaction thus causing the driver to suddenly brake or accelerate.When I passed my test, the first thing I did was drive on a motorway and light up a cigarette.
Only to hear a loud horn and realise I was drifting into the other lane.
I understand this could have been fatal and this has helped me realise the seriousness of doing ANYTHING whilst driving.
Since then I avoid smoking and driving.
Although I don't agree, maybe smoking and changing radio stations should be tested too (if so many people do this anyway)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896739</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256742600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--So no, this law does not go too far, in fact it does not go far enough. It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.--</p><p>We'll the GPS thing sounds ridiculous to me. If anything it would be more help than distracting, but to really find out conduct a double blind study of all of the things that you want to ban and be specific.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--So no , this law does not go too far , in fact it does not go far enough .
It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.--We 'll the GPS thing sounds ridiculous to me .
If anything it would be more help than distracting , but to really find out conduct a double blind study of all of the things that you want to ban and be specific .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--So no, this law does not go too far, in fact it does not go far enough.
It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.--We'll the GPS thing sounds ridiculous to me.
If anything it would be more help than distracting, but to really find out conduct a double blind study of all of the things that you want to ban and be specific.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897199</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256744280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not all of us bmw drivers are idiots!  =P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not all of us bmw drivers are idiots !
= P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not all of us bmw drivers are idiots!
=P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897765</id>
	<title>Manual transmissions</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1256746560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess if taking your hands off the wheel is illegal, then turning on wipers and headlights and even shifting gears is now a ticketable offense. This law is idiotic.</p><p>Here in America, it's already illegal to engage in distracted driving. Here is what you can be cited for:</p><p>
&nbsp; * driving over the posted limit, and in most places, &gt;10mph under the posted limit<br>
&nbsp; * changing lanes without signalling<br>
&nbsp; * failure to yield when required<br>
&nbsp; * "california stops"<br>
&nbsp; * failure to maintain control of your vehicle (which includes drifting out of your marked lane)<br>
&nbsp; * reckless driving<br>
&nbsp; * tailgating<br>
&nbsp; * hindering the flow of traffic<br>
&nbsp; * driving "left of center" (although in many states you can drive left of center to pass in agricultural counties, even where passing zones are not marked. I once drive behind a very slow-moving truck carrying farm equipment for &gt;20 miles because there were no marked passing zones and I didn't know it was legal)<br>
&nbsp; * traveling in the breakdown lane (except where/when it's legal)</p><p>etc. etc.</p><p>Even though there are already laws on the books that can and should be enforced aggressively, liberals are pushing to ban texting, talking, changing the radio, and so forth. EVEN THOUGH THE LAWS THAT ALREADY COVER BAD DRIVING GO UNENFORCED!! More often than not, any time anyone says "there ought to be a law" there are probably already 5 laws on the books that can be more easily enforced to fix the problem. We already have FAR too many laws and probably need to repeal 95\% of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess if taking your hands off the wheel is illegal , then turning on wipers and headlights and even shifting gears is now a ticketable offense .
This law is idiotic.Here in America , it 's already illegal to engage in distracted driving .
Here is what you can be cited for :   * driving over the posted limit , and in most places , &gt; 10mph under the posted limit   * changing lanes without signalling   * failure to yield when required   * " california stops "   * failure to maintain control of your vehicle ( which includes drifting out of your marked lane )   * reckless driving   * tailgating   * hindering the flow of traffic   * driving " left of center " ( although in many states you can drive left of center to pass in agricultural counties , even where passing zones are not marked .
I once drive behind a very slow-moving truck carrying farm equipment for &gt; 20 miles because there were no marked passing zones and I did n't know it was legal )   * traveling in the breakdown lane ( except where/when it 's legal ) etc .
etc.Even though there are already laws on the books that can and should be enforced aggressively , liberals are pushing to ban texting , talking , changing the radio , and so forth .
EVEN THOUGH THE LAWS THAT ALREADY COVER BAD DRIVING GO UNENFORCED ! !
More often than not , any time anyone says " there ought to be a law " there are probably already 5 laws on the books that can be more easily enforced to fix the problem .
We already have FAR too many laws and probably need to repeal 95 \ % of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess if taking your hands off the wheel is illegal, then turning on wipers and headlights and even shifting gears is now a ticketable offense.
This law is idiotic.Here in America, it's already illegal to engage in distracted driving.
Here is what you can be cited for:
  * driving over the posted limit, and in most places, &gt;10mph under the posted limit
  * changing lanes without signalling
  * failure to yield when required
  * "california stops"
  * failure to maintain control of your vehicle (which includes drifting out of your marked lane)
  * reckless driving
  * tailgating
  * hindering the flow of traffic
  * driving "left of center" (although in many states you can drive left of center to pass in agricultural counties, even where passing zones are not marked.
I once drive behind a very slow-moving truck carrying farm equipment for &gt;20 miles because there were no marked passing zones and I didn't know it was legal)
  * traveling in the breakdown lane (except where/when it's legal)etc.
etc.Even though there are already laws on the books that can and should be enforced aggressively, liberals are pushing to ban texting, talking, changing the radio, and so forth.
EVEN THOUGH THE LAWS THAT ALREADY COVER BAD DRIVING GO UNENFORCED!!
More often than not, any time anyone says "there ought to be a law" there are probably already 5 laws on the books that can be more easily enforced to fix the problem.
We already have FAR too many laws and probably need to repeal 95\% of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29903351</id>
	<title>No Hand-Held Devices In Ontario Cars</title>
	<author>mcneely.mike</author>
	<datestamp>1256728080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what do i do?  Cut off my John Thomas?  Throw away those french ticklers?  Stop having children like those members of the Presbyterian religion?
<br> <br>
I say i should have the right to keep my John Thomas... i should be able to walk proudly into a store and ask the pharmacist for a CONDOM.
<br> <br>
<i>Every sperm is precious... la-la-la<i>
<br>
Yes I do live in Ontario...and i'm proud of it. Just the other day i said to the pharmacist.......</i></i></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what do i do ?
Cut off my John Thomas ?
Throw away those french ticklers ?
Stop having children like those members of the Presbyterian religion ?
I say i should have the right to keep my John Thomas... i should be able to walk proudly into a store and ask the pharmacist for a CONDOM .
Every sperm is precious... la-la-la Yes I do live in Ontario...and i 'm proud of it .
Just the other day i said to the pharmacist...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what do i do?
Cut off my John Thomas?
Throw away those french ticklers?
Stop having children like those members of the Presbyterian religion?
I say i should have the right to keep my John Thomas... i should be able to walk proudly into a store and ask the pharmacist for a CONDOM.
Every sperm is precious... la-la-la

Yes I do live in Ontario...and i'm proud of it.
Just the other day i said to the pharmacist.......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898903</id>
	<title>Re:Get off your high horse</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1256751420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>First of all there is no "right to travel". </i></p><p><i>Yes, there is.  We have freedom of association under the U.S. Constitution, which necessarily requires the ability to travel.  And for much of the United States, traveling necessitates driving.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all there is no " right to travel " .
Yes , there is .
We have freedom of association under the U.S. Constitution , which necessarily requires the ability to travel .
And for much of the United States , traveling necessitates driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all there is no "right to travel".
Yes, there is.
We have freedom of association under the U.S. Constitution, which necessarily requires the ability to travel.
And for much of the United States, traveling necessitates driving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896577</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256741880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/10/21/bc-cellphone-driving-ban.html" title="www.cbc.ca" rel="nofollow">It's not a law yet in BC.</a> [www.cbc.ca]</p><p>here's a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile\_phones\_and\_driving\_safety#List\_of\_countries\_with\_bans" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">wiki list.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>#  Canada&mdash;Only banned in:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Newfoundland and Labrador<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Quebec as of April 1st, 2008<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Nova Scotia as of April 1st 2008<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Ontario as of October 26th 2009</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a law yet in BC .
[ www.cbc.ca ] here 's a wiki list .
[ wikipedia.org ] # Canada    Only banned in :         * Newfoundland and Labrador         * Quebec as of April 1st , 2008         * Nova Scotia as of April 1st 2008         * Ontario as of October 26th 2009</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a law yet in BC.
[www.cbc.ca]here's a wiki list.
[wikipedia.org]#  Canada—Only banned in:
        * Newfoundland and Labrador
        * Quebec as of April 1st, 2008
        * Nova Scotia as of April 1st 2008
        * Ontario as of October 26th 2009</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896329</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>sticky\_charris</author>
	<datestamp>1256740860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What has happened to the world?  Why are people so soft now?

People are living longer than ever they did before, and there are no great wars in the western world.  Medicine helps to keep people alive that otherwise would have died from various defects.  There is very little natural selection left in the developed world.

We are trying to make it impossible to die.  People aren't officially allowed to kill themselves even if they choose to.   What's next?  Perhaps manual gearboxes should be outlawed in case some retard isn't intelligent enough to shift and drive at the same time?  Or should that dipshit just be allowed to kill himself?  Yes, others may be involved, but that is better than the "if it saves even ONE precious life, we should all drive at 20mph ALL the time" mentality. It drives me up the wall.  Must we eliminate every danger from the western world?  Perhaps the only way to really be safe is to stay at home?  Perhaps if it is under 4 degrees outside all driving should be banned?

Sadly, as soon as anyone mentions a new law to make it illegal to do something whilst driving, there is a herd of nodding sadsacks lined up saying "yes, we SHOULD bad drivers from scratching their arses whist driving - think of the CHILDREN!" or "I for one APPLAUD THIS LAW - count me in - I don't hate children and want to kill them on the road".   Why are we all so soft now?  H&amp;S is on another planet now.  Last week I saw gardeners wearing life jackets.  "Yes, but look over there" they chanted,  "there is a sream running through the park - its for our own safety".  People have become so risk averse that  they are losing control on what is sensible and what is not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What has happened to the world ?
Why are people so soft now ?
People are living longer than ever they did before , and there are no great wars in the western world .
Medicine helps to keep people alive that otherwise would have died from various defects .
There is very little natural selection left in the developed world .
We are trying to make it impossible to die .
People are n't officially allowed to kill themselves even if they choose to .
What 's next ?
Perhaps manual gearboxes should be outlawed in case some retard is n't intelligent enough to shift and drive at the same time ?
Or should that dipshit just be allowed to kill himself ?
Yes , others may be involved , but that is better than the " if it saves even ONE precious life , we should all drive at 20mph ALL the time " mentality .
It drives me up the wall .
Must we eliminate every danger from the western world ?
Perhaps the only way to really be safe is to stay at home ?
Perhaps if it is under 4 degrees outside all driving should be banned ?
Sadly , as soon as anyone mentions a new law to make it illegal to do something whilst driving , there is a herd of nodding sadsacks lined up saying " yes , we SHOULD bad drivers from scratching their arses whist driving - think of the CHILDREN !
" or " I for one APPLAUD THIS LAW - count me in - I do n't hate children and want to kill them on the road " .
Why are we all so soft now ?
H&amp;S is on another planet now .
Last week I saw gardeners wearing life jackets .
" Yes , but look over there " they chanted , " there is a sream running through the park - its for our own safety " .
People have become so risk averse that they are losing control on what is sensible and what is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What has happened to the world?
Why are people so soft now?
People are living longer than ever they did before, and there are no great wars in the western world.
Medicine helps to keep people alive that otherwise would have died from various defects.
There is very little natural selection left in the developed world.
We are trying to make it impossible to die.
People aren't officially allowed to kill themselves even if they choose to.
What's next?
Perhaps manual gearboxes should be outlawed in case some retard isn't intelligent enough to shift and drive at the same time?
Or should that dipshit just be allowed to kill himself?
Yes, others may be involved, but that is better than the "if it saves even ONE precious life, we should all drive at 20mph ALL the time" mentality.
It drives me up the wall.
Must we eliminate every danger from the western world?
Perhaps the only way to really be safe is to stay at home?
Perhaps if it is under 4 degrees outside all driving should be banned?
Sadly, as soon as anyone mentions a new law to make it illegal to do something whilst driving, there is a herd of nodding sadsacks lined up saying "yes, we SHOULD bad drivers from scratching their arses whist driving - think of the CHILDREN!
" or "I for one APPLAUD THIS LAW - count me in - I don't hate children and want to kill them on the road".
Why are we all so soft now?
H&amp;S is on another planet now.
Last week I saw gardeners wearing life jackets.
"Yes, but look over there" they chanted,  "there is a sream running through the park - its for our own safety".
People have become so risk averse that  they are losing control on what is sensible and what is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896271</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256740680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So no, this law does not go too far, in fact it does not go far enough. It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.</i></p><p>That would certainly take care of the auto fatality problem; no one would be driving cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So no , this law does not go too far , in fact it does not go far enough .
It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.That would certainly take care of the auto fatality problem ; no one would be driving cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So no, this law does not go too far, in fact it does not go far enough.
It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.That would certainly take care of the auto fatality problem; no one would be driving cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895077</id>
	<title>Re:Terrible Summary</title>
	<author>supernova\_hq</author>
	<datestamp>1256732760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Leave it to kdawson to take a simple, long deserved law, have a stroke and start spewing FUD faster than Microsoft at an Ubuntu release party.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave it to kdawson to take a simple , long deserved law , have a stroke and start spewing FUD faster than Microsoft at an Ubuntu release party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave it to kdawson to take a simple, long deserved law, have a stroke and start spewing FUD faster than Microsoft at an Ubuntu release party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897511</id>
	<title>I guess this means no more drive bys</title>
	<author>whitedsepdivine</author>
	<datestamp>1256745480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess guns count as hand held devices also.

Someone needs to create a foot controlled text messaging device, so it is no longer a hand held.

I'll start working on the foot controlled guns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess guns count as hand held devices also .
Someone needs to create a foot controlled text messaging device , so it is no longer a hand held .
I 'll start working on the foot controlled guns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess guns count as hand held devices also.
Someone needs to create a foot controlled text messaging device, so it is no longer a hand held.
I'll start working on the foot controlled guns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896147</id>
	<title>Re:Steering Wheel Controls</title>
	<author>Convector</author>
	<datestamp>1256740140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed my wife's car has climate controls on the steering wheel.  Problem is, I'm not used to looking for them there, so I always do it the old fashioned way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed my wife 's car has climate controls on the steering wheel .
Problem is , I 'm not used to looking for them there , so I always do it the old fashioned way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed my wife's car has climate controls on the steering wheel.
Problem is, I'm not used to looking for them there, so I always do it the old fashioned way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896509</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1256741580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. while driving <b>is</b> covered the the law in question. I think a more sensible law would simply be that it is illegal to allow yourself to be unduly distracted while driving. Reading a road sign of course doesn't fit the criteria for undue distraction, I don't think changing a radio station does either as long as the driver is doing so only at a safe time.</p><p>It seems to me that banning electronic devices is a useless law. The police should be given the discretion to decide what constitutes distracted driving. Putting on a sweater while driving should be illegal, changing a radio station while driving through a crowded intersection should be illegal but doing so on a straight highway should be fine. The point is that most drivers are careful and do self-regulate when they engage in activities other than driving while behind the wheel. The trouble is that some don't and we need an external mechanism to enforce that kind of regulation on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading / .
while driving is covered the the law in question .
I think a more sensible law would simply be that it is illegal to allow yourself to be unduly distracted while driving .
Reading a road sign of course does n't fit the criteria for undue distraction , I do n't think changing a radio station does either as long as the driver is doing so only at a safe time.It seems to me that banning electronic devices is a useless law .
The police should be given the discretion to decide what constitutes distracted driving .
Putting on a sweater while driving should be illegal , changing a radio station while driving through a crowded intersection should be illegal but doing so on a straight highway should be fine .
The point is that most drivers are careful and do self-regulate when they engage in activities other than driving while behind the wheel .
The trouble is that some do n't and we need an external mechanism to enforce that kind of regulation on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading /.
while driving is covered the the law in question.
I think a more sensible law would simply be that it is illegal to allow yourself to be unduly distracted while driving.
Reading a road sign of course doesn't fit the criteria for undue distraction, I don't think changing a radio station does either as long as the driver is doing so only at a safe time.It seems to me that banning electronic devices is a useless law.
The police should be given the discretion to decide what constitutes distracted driving.
Putting on a sweater while driving should be illegal, changing a radio station while driving through a crowded intersection should be illegal but doing so on a straight highway should be fine.
The point is that most drivers are careful and do self-regulate when they engage in activities other than driving while behind the wheel.
The trouble is that some don't and we need an external mechanism to enforce that kind of regulation on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896641</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1256742120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined.</i></p><p>you're a law enforcement 'wet dream' is what you are.</p><p>and you're also the reason why we are now GOVERNED by the state of fear.  you want a perfect world.</p><p>aint no such thing.</p><p>you want safety everywhere.  safe safe safe!</p><p>aint no such thing.</p><p>grow up.</p><p>you, and all those power-grabby politicians, too.</p><p>GROW THE FUCK UP.  the world is not your disney movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined.you 're a law enforcement 'wet dream ' is what you are.and you 're also the reason why we are now GOVERNED by the state of fear .
you want a perfect world.aint no such thing.you want safety everywhere .
safe safe safe ! aint no such thing.grow up.you , and all those power-grabby politicians , too.GROW THE FUCK UP .
the world is not your disney movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined.you're a law enforcement 'wet dream' is what you are.and you're also the reason why we are now GOVERNED by the state of fear.
you want a perfect world.aint no such thing.you want safety everywhere.
safe safe safe!aint no such thing.grow up.you, and all those power-grabby politicians, too.GROW THE FUCK UP.
the world is not your disney movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899703</id>
	<title>Meanwhile, in other news ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1256754660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... hands-free "beer hat" sales skyrocket in Ontario.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... hands-free " beer hat " sales skyrocket in Ontario .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... hands-free "beer hat" sales skyrocket in Ontario.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897853</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1256746920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How the hell did this get modded +5 Insightful??</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell did this get modded + 5 Insightful ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell did this get modded +5 Insightful?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29908403</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already!!</title>
	<author>David Jao</author>
	<datestamp>1256819340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These handheld electronics bans are completely absurd and have no basis in reality or in science whatsoever. Why? Well, I am glad you asked. This bill states that a handheld cell phone is bad, but a hands-free one is ok. Well, science has shown again and again that the problem with using a cell phone while driving in the TALKING part, not holding the phone. If holding the phone were the problem, the ban would be on driving one handed. Having a conversation with a passenger would create the same distraction.</p></div><p>
All correct, except for the last sentence. Having a conversation on a cell phone is no way whatsoever the same as having a conversation with a passenger. The cell phone conversation is much, <strong>much</strong> worse.
</p><p>
A passenger in the same car has the same situational awareness as you. They can see other vehicles, hear outside traffic, feel your vehicle's motion, and so on. When road conditions become dangerous, the passenger will automatically prompt the driver to watch the road. This can take the form of either explicit warnings to pay attention to driving, or even seemingly insignificant (but in fact significant) social cues such as brief holds on conversation. In many cases, the passenger actually contributes to vehicle safety in a positive way, by doing things such as watching for cars in the other lane, or alerting the driver to hazards that the driver otherwise would have missed.  All of these benefits can persist during conversation, and in fact communication during driving, far from being detrimental, is actually required in order to realize these benefits.
</p><p>
When you're talking to someone on your cell phone, these positive benefits are absent. On a cell phone, you only have the distraction of holding a conversation with someone, and the person on the other end provides none of the offsetting safety benefits that a passenger in the same car would normally provide.
</p><p>
In fact, even if the passenger in the car is a toddler or someone incapable of contributing to safety, it's still less dangerous than a cell phone conversation (although very much more dangerous than talking to a competent adult).  At least you can respond to challenging road conditions by stopping the conversation automatically, without having to explain yourself later on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These handheld electronics bans are completely absurd and have no basis in reality or in science whatsoever .
Why ? Well , I am glad you asked .
This bill states that a handheld cell phone is bad , but a hands-free one is ok. Well , science has shown again and again that the problem with using a cell phone while driving in the TALKING part , not holding the phone .
If holding the phone were the problem , the ban would be on driving one handed .
Having a conversation with a passenger would create the same distraction .
All correct , except for the last sentence .
Having a conversation on a cell phone is no way whatsoever the same as having a conversation with a passenger .
The cell phone conversation is much , much worse .
A passenger in the same car has the same situational awareness as you .
They can see other vehicles , hear outside traffic , feel your vehicle 's motion , and so on .
When road conditions become dangerous , the passenger will automatically prompt the driver to watch the road .
This can take the form of either explicit warnings to pay attention to driving , or even seemingly insignificant ( but in fact significant ) social cues such as brief holds on conversation .
In many cases , the passenger actually contributes to vehicle safety in a positive way , by doing things such as watching for cars in the other lane , or alerting the driver to hazards that the driver otherwise would have missed .
All of these benefits can persist during conversation , and in fact communication during driving , far from being detrimental , is actually required in order to realize these benefits .
When you 're talking to someone on your cell phone , these positive benefits are absent .
On a cell phone , you only have the distraction of holding a conversation with someone , and the person on the other end provides none of the offsetting safety benefits that a passenger in the same car would normally provide .
In fact , even if the passenger in the car is a toddler or someone incapable of contributing to safety , it 's still less dangerous than a cell phone conversation ( although very much more dangerous than talking to a competent adult ) .
At least you can respond to challenging road conditions by stopping the conversation automatically , without having to explain yourself later on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These handheld electronics bans are completely absurd and have no basis in reality or in science whatsoever.
Why? Well, I am glad you asked.
This bill states that a handheld cell phone is bad, but a hands-free one is ok. Well, science has shown again and again that the problem with using a cell phone while driving in the TALKING part, not holding the phone.
If holding the phone were the problem, the ban would be on driving one handed.
Having a conversation with a passenger would create the same distraction.
All correct, except for the last sentence.
Having a conversation on a cell phone is no way whatsoever the same as having a conversation with a passenger.
The cell phone conversation is much, much worse.
A passenger in the same car has the same situational awareness as you.
They can see other vehicles, hear outside traffic, feel your vehicle's motion, and so on.
When road conditions become dangerous, the passenger will automatically prompt the driver to watch the road.
This can take the form of either explicit warnings to pay attention to driving, or even seemingly insignificant (but in fact significant) social cues such as brief holds on conversation.
In many cases, the passenger actually contributes to vehicle safety in a positive way, by doing things such as watching for cars in the other lane, or alerting the driver to hazards that the driver otherwise would have missed.
All of these benefits can persist during conversation, and in fact communication during driving, far from being detrimental, is actually required in order to realize these benefits.
When you're talking to someone on your cell phone, these positive benefits are absent.
On a cell phone, you only have the distraction of holding a conversation with someone, and the person on the other end provides none of the offsetting safety benefits that a passenger in the same car would normally provide.
In fact, even if the passenger in the car is a toddler or someone incapable of contributing to safety, it's still less dangerous than a cell phone conversation (although very much more dangerous than talking to a competent adult).
At least you can respond to challenging road conditions by stopping the conversation automatically, without having to explain yourself later on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895005</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256732100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm... 'Central Canada' is in Manitoba, not Saskatchewan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm... 'Central Canada ' is in Manitoba , not Saskatchewan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm... 'Central Canada' is in Manitoba, not Saskatchewan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895847</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1256738640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slippery slope arguments are the last refuge of the scoundrel.</p><p>By your logic, we shouldn't have any safety legislation at all. I should be allowed to drive drunk, 50mph above the speed limit, the risks are no worse than being attacked by badgers whilst sitting at a computer.</p><p>You see, these slopes slide both ways. Regulations against dangerous driving are sensible. Laws banning mobile phones and fucking with the radio are sensible. Driving is a priviledge, not a right*. If you're controlling a several tonne projectile whereby a single error could kill innocent people, you'll control it in a matter prescribed by government. Libertarians can fuck right off.</p><p>*This at least is the case in the UK where we have much lower fatality rates. Maybe drinking coffee whilst driving an SUV is protected in your constitution, I don't know, I don't really follow foreign politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slippery slope arguments are the last refuge of the scoundrel.By your logic , we should n't have any safety legislation at all .
I should be allowed to drive drunk , 50mph above the speed limit , the risks are no worse than being attacked by badgers whilst sitting at a computer.You see , these slopes slide both ways .
Regulations against dangerous driving are sensible .
Laws banning mobile phones and fucking with the radio are sensible .
Driving is a priviledge , not a right * .
If you 're controlling a several tonne projectile whereby a single error could kill innocent people , you 'll control it in a matter prescribed by government .
Libertarians can fuck right off .
* This at least is the case in the UK where we have much lower fatality rates .
Maybe drinking coffee whilst driving an SUV is protected in your constitution , I do n't know , I do n't really follow foreign politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slippery slope arguments are the last refuge of the scoundrel.By your logic, we shouldn't have any safety legislation at all.
I should be allowed to drive drunk, 50mph above the speed limit, the risks are no worse than being attacked by badgers whilst sitting at a computer.You see, these slopes slide both ways.
Regulations against dangerous driving are sensible.
Laws banning mobile phones and fucking with the radio are sensible.
Driving is a priviledge, not a right*.
If you're controlling a several tonne projectile whereby a single error could kill innocent people, you'll control it in a matter prescribed by government.
Libertarians can fuck right off.
*This at least is the case in the UK where we have much lower fatality rates.
Maybe drinking coffee whilst driving an SUV is protected in your constitution, I don't know, I don't really follow foreign politics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894889</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256730780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in Nova Scotia, Ontario is west from here, when I go there to work I go "out west for work".  Many people from Ontario have a hard time dealing with them being "out west".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in Nova Scotia , Ontario is west from here , when I go there to work I go " out west for work " .
Many people from Ontario have a hard time dealing with them being " out west " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in Nova Scotia, Ontario is west from here, when I go there to work I go "out west for work".
Many people from Ontario have a hard time dealing with them being "out west".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898053</id>
	<title>... or even drink your morning coffee ...</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1256747640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Argh.  I'm not terribly keen on sharing a road with people who are changing tracks / radio stations but it's only a quick button press so I trust you can be sensible about when you do it and hopefully you won't kill yourself or me.  But drinking hot liquids whilst driving?  Seriously?  If you're stopped in traffic with the car in neutral then I guess that's fair enough, maybe you expect that on your commute and so you bring the coffee to give you something to do.  But if you're drinking it whilst actually driving - that's less a question of a "a sensible driver can do it safely" and more a way of self-identifying as an unsafe driver.  I contend that *by definition* if you think you can drive safely whilst drinking coffee you probably can't drive safely.</p><p>Maybe I'm being a little harsh since where I live we have quite a dense city road network and a lot of windy rural roads.  It's also very busy.  Maybe if I lived in Canada with its wide open spaces I'd think it was less of a problem.  Nevertheless, I'd *still* think it's irresponsible to drive whilst drinking coffee (what if you met an animal on the road?) and as soon as you get into an urban area it's just ridiculous and irresponsible.  Drinking hot drinks is worse than drinking water (which would still be bad if you took hands off the controls) since you will instinctively not drop it into your lap, even if there's an on-road emergency.</p><p>If anyone's thinking "I can do this safely because I'm an above-average driver"...  Welcome to the 99.99999...\% of drivers who believe they're above average!</p><p>The fact that people overestimate their skills in this way is why intrusive legislation like this becomes necessary.  I'd be much more in favour of leaving this matters to individual judgment if people were able to perceive their own failings accurately.  Next time you get cut up, think to yourself "maybe I should have driven more defensively" and strike a blow for freedom of choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Argh .
I 'm not terribly keen on sharing a road with people who are changing tracks / radio stations but it 's only a quick button press so I trust you can be sensible about when you do it and hopefully you wo n't kill yourself or me .
But drinking hot liquids whilst driving ?
Seriously ? If you 're stopped in traffic with the car in neutral then I guess that 's fair enough , maybe you expect that on your commute and so you bring the coffee to give you something to do .
But if you 're drinking it whilst actually driving - that 's less a question of a " a sensible driver can do it safely " and more a way of self-identifying as an unsafe driver .
I contend that * by definition * if you think you can drive safely whilst drinking coffee you probably ca n't drive safely.Maybe I 'm being a little harsh since where I live we have quite a dense city road network and a lot of windy rural roads .
It 's also very busy .
Maybe if I lived in Canada with its wide open spaces I 'd think it was less of a problem .
Nevertheless , I 'd * still * think it 's irresponsible to drive whilst drinking coffee ( what if you met an animal on the road ?
) and as soon as you get into an urban area it 's just ridiculous and irresponsible .
Drinking hot drinks is worse than drinking water ( which would still be bad if you took hands off the controls ) since you will instinctively not drop it into your lap , even if there 's an on-road emergency.If anyone 's thinking " I can do this safely because I 'm an above-average driver " ... Welcome to the 99.99999... \ % of drivers who believe they 're above average ! The fact that people overestimate their skills in this way is why intrusive legislation like this becomes necessary .
I 'd be much more in favour of leaving this matters to individual judgment if people were able to perceive their own failings accurately .
Next time you get cut up , think to yourself " maybe I should have driven more defensively " and strike a blow for freedom of choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Argh.
I'm not terribly keen on sharing a road with people who are changing tracks / radio stations but it's only a quick button press so I trust you can be sensible about when you do it and hopefully you won't kill yourself or me.
But drinking hot liquids whilst driving?
Seriously?  If you're stopped in traffic with the car in neutral then I guess that's fair enough, maybe you expect that on your commute and so you bring the coffee to give you something to do.
But if you're drinking it whilst actually driving - that's less a question of a "a sensible driver can do it safely" and more a way of self-identifying as an unsafe driver.
I contend that *by definition* if you think you can drive safely whilst drinking coffee you probably can't drive safely.Maybe I'm being a little harsh since where I live we have quite a dense city road network and a lot of windy rural roads.
It's also very busy.
Maybe if I lived in Canada with its wide open spaces I'd think it was less of a problem.
Nevertheless, I'd *still* think it's irresponsible to drive whilst drinking coffee (what if you met an animal on the road?
) and as soon as you get into an urban area it's just ridiculous and irresponsible.
Drinking hot drinks is worse than drinking water (which would still be bad if you took hands off the controls) since you will instinctively not drop it into your lap, even if there's an on-road emergency.If anyone's thinking "I can do this safely because I'm an above-average driver"...  Welcome to the 99.99999...\% of drivers who believe they're above average!The fact that people overestimate their skills in this way is why intrusive legislation like this becomes necessary.
I'd be much more in favour of leaving this matters to individual judgment if people were able to perceive their own failings accurately.
Next time you get cut up, think to yourself "maybe I should have driven more defensively" and strike a blow for freedom of choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896291</id>
	<title>Too far?</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1256740800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...it seems to have been taken a little too far..."</p><p>No it hasn't.</p><p>You are piloting 2-4000 pounds of metal that kills people when you hit them with it. Driving and the other men, women and children on the road deserve your full attention.</p><p>If I had my way you'd get your license taken. If you don't pay attention to what you are doing on the road you aren't worthy of the privilege of driving. Looking where you are going is a requirement to do it safely.</p><p>End of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...it seems to have been taken a little too far... " No it has n't.You are piloting 2-4000 pounds of metal that kills people when you hit them with it .
Driving and the other men , women and children on the road deserve your full attention.If I had my way you 'd get your license taken .
If you do n't pay attention to what you are doing on the road you are n't worthy of the privilege of driving .
Looking where you are going is a requirement to do it safely.End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...it seems to have been taken a little too far..."No it hasn't.You are piloting 2-4000 pounds of metal that kills people when you hit them with it.
Driving and the other men, women and children on the road deserve your full attention.If I had my way you'd get your license taken.
If you don't pay attention to what you are doing on the road you aren't worthy of the privilege of driving.
Looking where you are going is a requirement to do it safely.End of story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896157</id>
	<title>Studies?</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1256740200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Laws against cell phone use while driving have been around for years in some places, but I have not seen data or studies to see what effect the laws have had. I expect that it should reduce accidents, but I would also expect politicians to brag about the success of such laws, which I haven't seen, so I can't help but wonder if the laws have had no significant effect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws against cell phone use while driving have been around for years in some places , but I have not seen data or studies to see what effect the laws have had .
I expect that it should reduce accidents , but I would also expect politicians to brag about the success of such laws , which I have n't seen , so I ca n't help but wonder if the laws have had no significant effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws against cell phone use while driving have been around for years in some places, but I have not seen data or studies to see what effect the laws have had.
I expect that it should reduce accidents, but I would also expect politicians to brag about the success of such laws, which I haven't seen, so I can't help but wonder if the laws have had no significant effect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896939</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>dem0n1</author>
	<datestamp>1256743260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How does one demistify the windows?</p></div><p>I think there's a book for that, have you tried looking in the Google?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does one demistify the windows ? I think there 's a book for that , have you tried looking in the Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does one demistify the windows?I think there's a book for that, have you tried looking in the Google?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898077</id>
	<title>Makes sense</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1256747700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>in Ontario it is now a ticketable offense to text, email, or navigate with your GPS [CC] while driving.</p></div></blockquote><p>That makes sense. It is obviously much safer to navigate using a big printed street directory and drive erratically while you look back and forth between your street directory and street signs, stopping every few feet while you try to get your bearings. Yes, this legislation makes sense!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in Ontario it is now a ticketable offense to text , email , or navigate with your GPS [ CC ] while driving.That makes sense .
It is obviously much safer to navigate using a big printed street directory and drive erratically while you look back and forth between your street directory and street signs , stopping every few feet while you try to get your bearings .
Yes , this legislation makes sense !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in Ontario it is now a ticketable offense to text, email, or navigate with your GPS [CC] while driving.That makes sense.
It is obviously much safer to navigate using a big printed street directory and drive erratically while you look back and forth between your street directory and street signs, stopping every few feet while you try to get your bearings.
Yes, this legislation makes sense!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896857</id>
	<title>Re:Terrible Summary</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256742960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks the GPS thing did sound stupid but when read in context none of the laws now seem out of line. It seems like more and more snippets of information is all that you get fooling you into believing something that just plainly isn't true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks the GPS thing did sound stupid but when read in context none of the laws now seem out of line .
It seems like more and more snippets of information is all that you get fooling you into believing something that just plainly is n't true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks the GPS thing did sound stupid but when read in context none of the laws now seem out of line.
It seems like more and more snippets of information is all that you get fooling you into believing something that just plainly isn't true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902963</id>
	<title>Stop letting bad drivers get licenses</title>
	<author>RsJtSu</author>
	<datestamp>1256726220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop letting everyone who applies for a license get one. Bad drivers do not need to be issued a license. If the government was really concerned about making drivers safer and less about tax/fine dollars then there would be less poor drivers out there with government issued licenses. It is not a right to be able to drive, it is a privilege. If you do not have the capacity to operate a motor vehicle then you should not be issued a license. This is the ONLY way that there will be safe drivers on the road.
<p>
You make a smarter car that self parks, has a backup camera, 40 air bags, voice activated GPS etc and I'll show you the idiot who takes advantages of these things and kills themselves or someone else because they cannot do the basic task required when operating a motor vehicle which is BEING ABLE TO DRIVE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop letting everyone who applies for a license get one .
Bad drivers do not need to be issued a license .
If the government was really concerned about making drivers safer and less about tax/fine dollars then there would be less poor drivers out there with government issued licenses .
It is not a right to be able to drive , it is a privilege .
If you do not have the capacity to operate a motor vehicle then you should not be issued a license .
This is the ONLY way that there will be safe drivers on the road .
You make a smarter car that self parks , has a backup camera , 40 air bags , voice activated GPS etc and I 'll show you the idiot who takes advantages of these things and kills themselves or someone else because they can not do the basic task required when operating a motor vehicle which is BEING ABLE TO DRIVE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop letting everyone who applies for a license get one.
Bad drivers do not need to be issued a license.
If the government was really concerned about making drivers safer and less about tax/fine dollars then there would be less poor drivers out there with government issued licenses.
It is not a right to be able to drive, it is a privilege.
If you do not have the capacity to operate a motor vehicle then you should not be issued a license.
This is the ONLY way that there will be safe drivers on the road.
You make a smarter car that self parks, has a backup camera, 40 air bags, voice activated GPS etc and I'll show you the idiot who takes advantages of these things and kills themselves or someone else because they cannot do the basic task required when operating a motor vehicle which is BEING ABLE TO DRIVE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898809</id>
	<title>feel sorry for those with stick shifts...</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1256751000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>man, I see it now.</p><p>Police:  "Eh, you took your, eh, hand off the steering wheel, eh.  Thats a fine, eh."<br>Driver:  "Eh, I had to shift out of 3rd gear.  eh"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>man , I see it now.Police : " Eh , you took your , eh , hand off the steering wheel , eh .
Thats a fine , eh .
" Driver : " Eh , I had to shift out of 3rd gear .
eh "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>man, I see it now.Police:  "Eh, you took your, eh, hand off the steering wheel, eh.
Thats a fine, eh.
"Driver:  "Eh, I had to shift out of 3rd gear.
eh"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896789</id>
	<title>Isn't driving badly incentive enough?</title>
	<author>Mattness</author>
	<datestamp>1256742780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would seem incentive enough that driving badly can result in injury, death or jail time, simply for being negligent in your responsibility to navigate the road safely. I think it is arrogance that makes legislators think that a problem has a legislative solution. It is an example of those who have only incompetent hammers, seeing everything as a nail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem incentive enough that driving badly can result in injury , death or jail time , simply for being negligent in your responsibility to navigate the road safely .
I think it is arrogance that makes legislators think that a problem has a legislative solution .
It is an example of those who have only incompetent hammers , seeing everything as a nail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem incentive enough that driving badly can result in injury, death or jail time, simply for being negligent in your responsibility to navigate the road safely.
I think it is arrogance that makes legislators think that a problem has a legislative solution.
It is an example of those who have only incompetent hammers, seeing everything as a nail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659</id>
	<title>I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1256728260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, 'blame Canada' - to put it in context, most Canadians west of Ontario, view Ontario in the same way most Americans view France - that is, hopelessly and utterly broken. So stuff like this isn't a surprise - I don't mean to troll, but those easterners are about as blissfully statist as you can get and still be called a democracy.</p><p>Oh, and for those Ontarians in the audience? Yeah, 'Central Canada' would be Saskatchewan. Anything east of that is 'Eastern'.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , 'blame Canada ' - to put it in context , most Canadians west of Ontario , view Ontario in the same way most Americans view France - that is , hopelessly and utterly broken .
So stuff like this is n't a surprise - I do n't mean to troll , but those easterners are about as blissfully statist as you can get and still be called a democracy.Oh , and for those Ontarians in the audience ?
Yeah , 'Central Canada ' would be Saskatchewan .
Anything east of that is 'Eastern' .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, 'blame Canada' - to put it in context, most Canadians west of Ontario, view Ontario in the same way most Americans view France - that is, hopelessly and utterly broken.
So stuff like this isn't a surprise - I don't mean to troll, but those easterners are about as blissfully statist as you can get and still be called a democracy.Oh, and for those Ontarians in the audience?
Yeah, 'Central Canada' would be Saskatchewan.
Anything east of that is 'Eastern'.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29901867</id>
	<title>Sneezing...</title>
	<author>skiman1979</author>
	<datestamp>1256720700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's next?  Are they going to make it illegal to cover your mouth if you sneeze or cough while driving?  That requires you to take your hand off of the wheel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's next ?
Are they going to make it illegal to cover your mouth if you sneeze or cough while driving ?
That requires you to take your hand off of the wheel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's next?
Are they going to make it illegal to cover your mouth if you sneeze or cough while driving?
That requires you to take your hand off of the wheel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894917</id>
	<title>Re:People with stick shifters are hosed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256731200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless they grow a third arm for shifting, anyway.</p></div><p>get those hand on the steering wheel!  no gear changing no indicating no changes to rear view mirror do all this and you will be a safe alert driver!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they grow a third arm for shifting , anyway.get those hand on the steering wheel !
no gear changing no indicating no changes to rear view mirror do all this and you will be a safe alert driver !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they grow a third arm for shifting, anyway.get those hand on the steering wheel!
no gear changing no indicating no changes to rear view mirror do all this and you will be a safe alert driver!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895479</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>MightyYar</author>
	<datestamp>1256736060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right - and people also need to realize just how dangerous cars are. In the US, we have 40,000+ deaths every year from automobile accidents, not to mention the maiming.</p><p>Look how wound up people get about war casualties... the Iraq war killed about 10x fewer Americans, and over 7 years, and they were (mostly) not American civilians.</p><p>Or look at the flu hysteria. 5000 dead worldwide, with emergencies getting declared. Where is the "automotive emergency"?</p><p>Every time we get into a car, we roll the dice. It is perhaps the most dangerous thing any of us will ever do, and yet we do it every day and whine about not being able to use our gadgets or drink our coffee! It's a true testament to our species inability to judge risk that we will fear a roller coaster but not the family minivan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right - and people also need to realize just how dangerous cars are .
In the US , we have 40,000 + deaths every year from automobile accidents , not to mention the maiming.Look how wound up people get about war casualties... the Iraq war killed about 10x fewer Americans , and over 7 years , and they were ( mostly ) not American civilians.Or look at the flu hysteria .
5000 dead worldwide , with emergencies getting declared .
Where is the " automotive emergency " ? Every time we get into a car , we roll the dice .
It is perhaps the most dangerous thing any of us will ever do , and yet we do it every day and whine about not being able to use our gadgets or drink our coffee !
It 's a true testament to our species inability to judge risk that we will fear a roller coaster but not the family minivan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right - and people also need to realize just how dangerous cars are.
In the US, we have 40,000+ deaths every year from automobile accidents, not to mention the maiming.Look how wound up people get about war casualties... the Iraq war killed about 10x fewer Americans, and over 7 years, and they were (mostly) not American civilians.Or look at the flu hysteria.
5000 dead worldwide, with emergencies getting declared.
Where is the "automotive emergency"?Every time we get into a car, we roll the dice.
It is perhaps the most dangerous thing any of us will ever do, and yet we do it every day and whine about not being able to use our gadgets or drink our coffee!
It's a true testament to our species inability to judge risk that we will fear a roller coaster but not the family minivan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896629</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256742060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><div><p>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC?</p></div></div><p>As a resident of Alberta, I can state with some authority that anyone out here has no concept of "facts."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC ? As a resident of Alberta , I can state with some authority that anyone out here has no concept of " facts .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC?As a resident of Alberta, I can state with some authority that anyone out here has no concept of "facts.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898269</id>
	<title>Such is the state of law</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1256748660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they aren't specific, people find loopholes.  It would be nice if we could apply common sense in the court system (a single dangerous/distracted driving law would then suffice), but that will never happen or be enforceable.</p><p>The biggest problem is laws that supercede previous laws needing to still have the verbage of the original, with links, etc, making them bloated and not easily understandable (see healthcare reform in U.S.).  Better to simply kill old laws when the new one is written, as is done in RFC land.  Oh well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are n't specific , people find loopholes .
It would be nice if we could apply common sense in the court system ( a single dangerous/distracted driving law would then suffice ) , but that will never happen or be enforceable.The biggest problem is laws that supercede previous laws needing to still have the verbage of the original , with links , etc , making them bloated and not easily understandable ( see healthcare reform in U.S. ) .
Better to simply kill old laws when the new one is written , as is done in RFC land .
Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they aren't specific, people find loopholes.
It would be nice if we could apply common sense in the court system (a single dangerous/distracted driving law would then suffice), but that will never happen or be enforceable.The biggest problem is laws that supercede previous laws needing to still have the verbage of the original, with links, etc, making them bloated and not easily understandable (see healthcare reform in U.S.).
Better to simply kill old laws when the new one is written, as is done in RFC land.
Oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29901301</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Raptor851</author>
	<datestamp>1256761260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the case of not having cup holders, it's not terribly hard either. In the case of US cars....use your left hand to hold the cup.

I know, most people would never think to do something so radical...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the case of not having cup holders , it 's not terribly hard either .
In the case of US cars....use your left hand to hold the cup .
I know , most people would never think to do something so radical.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the case of not having cup holders, it's not terribly hard either.
In the case of US cars....use your left hand to hold the cup.
I know, most people would never think to do something so radical...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895035</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256732400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do none of these places have an offense of "driving without due care or attention" which would suffice,</p></div><p>Yeah, but that involves the police gathering evidence and making a case that a driver was not in control of their vehicle. These new offences are mainly "fixed penalty" jobs that bypass all that tedious stuff about "due process" and "a fair hearing", and are absolutely brilliant for soft-targetting people sitting in traffic jams (much easier than catching that idiot in a BMW as he zooms past).
</p><p>On the bright side, maybe eventually the police will be given powers to simply arrest anybody driving a white van or a large German car.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do none of these places have an offense of " driving without due care or attention " which would suffice,Yeah , but that involves the police gathering evidence and making a case that a driver was not in control of their vehicle .
These new offences are mainly " fixed penalty " jobs that bypass all that tedious stuff about " due process " and " a fair hearing " , and are absolutely brilliant for soft-targetting people sitting in traffic jams ( much easier than catching that idiot in a BMW as he zooms past ) .
On the bright side , maybe eventually the police will be given powers to simply arrest anybody driving a white van or a large German car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do none of these places have an offense of "driving without due care or attention" which would suffice,Yeah, but that involves the police gathering evidence and making a case that a driver was not in control of their vehicle.
These new offences are mainly "fixed penalty" jobs that bypass all that tedious stuff about "due process" and "a fair hearing", and are absolutely brilliant for soft-targetting people sitting in traffic jams (much easier than catching that idiot in a BMW as he zooms past).
On the bright side, maybe eventually the police will be given powers to simply arrest anybody driving a white van or a large German car.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897141</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256744040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not Alberta AFAIK - the local media has been reporting that we are NOT following the other provinces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not Alberta AFAIK - the local media has been reporting that we are NOT following the other provinces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not Alberta AFAIK - the local media has been reporting that we are NOT following the other provinces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895543</id>
	<title>Stick</title>
	<author>a10\_es</author>
	<datestamp>1256736540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It can also be enforced to the point where changing the climate controls on your dash can get you fined because it requires you to take your hands off the wheel.</p></div><p>if you aren't allowed to take the hands off the wheel, you can't drive stick (unless you stay on first gear all the trip).<br>
I guess since all yanks drive an automatic geared car this is no problem</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It can also be enforced to the point where changing the climate controls on your dash can get you fined because it requires you to take your hands off the wheel.if you are n't allowed to take the hands off the wheel , you ca n't drive stick ( unless you stay on first gear all the trip ) .
I guess since all yanks drive an automatic geared car this is no problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can also be enforced to the point where changing the climate controls on your dash can get you fined because it requires you to take your hands off the wheel.if you aren't allowed to take the hands off the wheel, you can't drive stick (unless you stay on first gear all the trip).
I guess since all yanks drive an automatic geared car this is no problem
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29903457</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not get up a bit earlier and enjoy your coffee at home? Or perhaps at work? Or is the US just that fucked up in terms of work culture that that isn't possible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not get up a bit earlier and enjoy your coffee at home ?
Or perhaps at work ?
Or is the US just that fucked up in terms of work culture that that is n't possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not get up a bit earlier and enjoy your coffee at home?
Or perhaps at work?
Or is the US just that fucked up in terms of work culture that that isn't possible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894995</id>
	<title>Re:RTFS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256731980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"First they came for the HTC Hero, and I did not speak out&mdash;because I do not own a Hero;<br>Then they came for the Nokia N95, and I did not speak out&mdash;because I do not own an N95;<br>Then they came for the G2 Android Phone, and I did not speak out&mdash;because I do not own an Android;<br>Then they came for my iPhone&mdash;and there was no one left to tweet out for me."</p><p>-- Steve Jobs (1955 - )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" First they came for the HTC Hero , and I did not speak out    because I do not own a Hero ; Then they came for the Nokia N95 , and I did not speak out    because I do not own an N95 ; Then they came for the G2 Android Phone , and I did not speak out    because I do not own an Android ; Then they came for my iPhone    and there was no one left to tweet out for me .
" -- Steve Jobs ( 1955 - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"First they came for the HTC Hero, and I did not speak out—because I do not own a Hero;Then they came for the Nokia N95, and I did not speak out—because I do not own an N95;Then they came for the G2 Android Phone, and I did not speak out—because I do not own an Android;Then they came for my iPhone—and there was no one left to tweet out for me.
"-- Steve Jobs (1955 - )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898567</id>
	<title>Hands are the wrong target</title>
	<author>X86Daddy</author>
	<datestamp>1256749860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So many of these stupid laws talk about <strong>hands</strong> free being the way to go.  <strong>FAIL</strong>.  When I built my first car PC and onward, I focused on safety by making my interfaces <strong>eyes free</strong>.  A handheld MP3 player that reads out directory names as you switch, etc... is safer than an in-dash, traditional radio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So many of these stupid laws talk about hands free being the way to go .
FAIL. When I built my first car PC and onward , I focused on safety by making my interfaces eyes free .
A handheld MP3 player that reads out directory names as you switch , etc... is safer than an in-dash , traditional radio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So many of these stupid laws talk about hands free being the way to go.
FAIL.  When I built my first car PC and onward, I focused on safety by making my interfaces eyes free.
A handheld MP3 player that reads out directory names as you switch, etc... is safer than an in-dash, traditional radio.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894769</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256729400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>True, but that would require law enforcement actually out and patrolling. With a tickbox system, they can just sit on the shoulder with one eye on the Radar gun, and another on the lookout for those hooligans who ride in the HOV lane with a single rider.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but that would require law enforcement actually out and patrolling .
With a tickbox system , they can just sit on the shoulder with one eye on the Radar gun , and another on the lookout for those hooligans who ride in the HOV lane with a single rider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but that would require law enforcement actually out and patrolling.
With a tickbox system, they can just sit on the shoulder with one eye on the Radar gun, and another on the lookout for those hooligans who ride in the HOV lane with a single rider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896129</id>
	<title>Re:Terrible Summary</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1256740080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems pretty sensible. I've seen several near-accidents and a fair amount of people zoning out at a red light turned green or breaking traffic laws because they were playing with their iPod - simple safety stuff like this would be a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems pretty sensible .
I 've seen several near-accidents and a fair amount of people zoning out at a red light turned green or breaking traffic laws because they were playing with their iPod - simple safety stuff like this would be a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems pretty sensible.
I've seen several near-accidents and a fair amount of people zoning out at a red light turned green or breaking traffic laws because they were playing with their iPod - simple safety stuff like this would be a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895713</id>
	<title>Re:Correct. The summary should be tagged "troll"</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1256737860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once you reach the age of 40 it becomes apparent that young drivers are crap and greatly overestimate their skills and their road attentiveness.</p></div><p>Funny that you say that - Car and Driver did a test a couple issues back to compare drunk driving versus texting while driving.  They had two people that they recorded, both at low speed and highway speed.  One of the subjects was 22 and the other was 37.  Here's the thing - the 22 year olds reaction time even while drunk and distracted by texting were better than the 37 year old when he was dead sober and had no distractions.</p><p>Am I saying it's safe to drive drunk or text while driving?  Hell no.  But it does show that even someone as young as 40 has their reaction times slowing down enough that they pose a danger.</p><p>As for "those damn kids" - people that drive like idiots drive that way regardless of age.  Responsible drivers also drive that way regardless of age.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you reach the age of 40 it becomes apparent that young drivers are crap and greatly overestimate their skills and their road attentiveness.Funny that you say that - Car and Driver did a test a couple issues back to compare drunk driving versus texting while driving .
They had two people that they recorded , both at low speed and highway speed .
One of the subjects was 22 and the other was 37 .
Here 's the thing - the 22 year olds reaction time even while drunk and distracted by texting were better than the 37 year old when he was dead sober and had no distractions.Am I saying it 's safe to drive drunk or text while driving ?
Hell no .
But it does show that even someone as young as 40 has their reaction times slowing down enough that they pose a danger.As for " those damn kids " - people that drive like idiots drive that way regardless of age .
Responsible drivers also drive that way regardless of age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you reach the age of 40 it becomes apparent that young drivers are crap and greatly overestimate their skills and their road attentiveness.Funny that you say that - Car and Driver did a test a couple issues back to compare drunk driving versus texting while driving.
They had two people that they recorded, both at low speed and highway speed.
One of the subjects was 22 and the other was 37.
Here's the thing - the 22 year olds reaction time even while drunk and distracted by texting were better than the 37 year old when he was dead sober and had no distractions.Am I saying it's safe to drive drunk or text while driving?
Hell no.
But it does show that even someone as young as 40 has their reaction times slowing down enough that they pose a danger.As for "those damn kids" - people that drive like idiots drive that way regardless of age.
Responsible drivers also drive that way regardless of age.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894619</id>
	<title>Man!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256727960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How am I going to pick my nose now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How am I going to pick my nose now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How am I going to pick my nose now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894857</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256730480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still NOT far enough.  The two drivers involved in any accident should be immediately jailed until fault is assigned, and the at-fault driver hanged from the neck until declared dead!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still NOT far enough .
The two drivers involved in any accident should be immediately jailed until fault is assigned , and the at-fault driver hanged from the neck until declared dead !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still NOT far enough.
The two drivers involved in any accident should be immediately jailed until fault is assigned, and the at-fault driver hanged from the neck until declared dead!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895153</id>
	<title>Re:Terrible Summary</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1256733420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coffee is my collision avoidance system.  It keeps me sane enought to avoid driving my car into opposing lanes of traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coffee is my collision avoidance system .
It keeps me sane enought to avoid driving my car into opposing lanes of traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coffee is my collision avoidance system.
It keeps me sane enought to avoid driving my car into opposing lanes of traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894843</id>
	<title>People with stick shifters are hosed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256730360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless they grow a third arm for shifting, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they grow a third arm for shifting , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they grow a third arm for shifting, anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894707</id>
	<title>Some truth about this..</title>
	<author>ImNotAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1256728800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the original article that the blog post refers too. <a href="http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/10327--distracted-driving-law-passes-at-queen-s-park" title="citytv.com">http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/10327--distracted-driving-law-passes-at-queen-s-park</a> [citytv.com] <p><div class="quote"><p>Hands-free Bluetooth devices are O.K., and you'll be allowed to use any phone in the event of an emergency to call 911. Your GPS unit will still be able to direct you, as long as its properly secured to your dashboard.</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>"Communication devices such as CBs that are hard-wired into the vehicle are not covered by the ban," the official states.</p>  </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the original article that the blog post refers too .
http : //www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/10327--distracted-driving-law-passes-at-queen-s-park [ citytv.com ] Hands-free Bluetooth devices are O.K. , and you 'll be allowed to use any phone in the event of an emergency to call 911 .
Your GPS unit will still be able to direct you , as long as its properly secured to your dashboard .
" Communication devices such as CBs that are hard-wired into the vehicle are not covered by the ban , " the official states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the original article that the blog post refers too.
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/10327--distracted-driving-law-passes-at-queen-s-park [citytv.com] Hands-free Bluetooth devices are O.K., and you'll be allowed to use any phone in the event of an emergency to call 911.
Your GPS unit will still be able to direct you, as long as its properly secured to your dashboard.
"Communication devices such as CBs that are hard-wired into the vehicle are not covered by the ban," the official states.  
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897353</id>
	<title>Uhmm... one second</title>
	<author>ZDRuX</author>
	<datestamp>1256744940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>in Ontario it is now a ticketable offense to text, email, or navigate with your GPS while driving.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I don't know where they got this list of things you can't do, but the "official" handout from the government of Ontario very clearly states what you CAN and CANNOT use while driving.<br> <br>

You CANNOT use:<br>
-<b>Hand-held wireless communications devices such as cell phones, smartphones<br>
-Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods, or other portable MP3 players, or portable games<br>
-Texting and emailing<br>
-Viewing display screens on devices not required for driving such as a laptop or DVD player</b> <br> <br>

You CAN use:<br>
<b>-Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device<br>
-911 calls<br>
-Pressing the button of a hand-held device to activate hands-free mode for incoming or outbound calls<br>
-GPS units mounted on dashboards<br>
-Collision avoidance systems<br>
-Use by emergency services personnel such as police, fire and ambulance<br>
-Logistical transportation tracking devices used for commercial vehicles</b> <br> <br>

This is available on a PDF printout here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in Ontario it is now a ticketable offense to text , email , or navigate with your GPS while driving .
I do n't know where they got this list of things you ca n't do , but the " official " handout from the government of Ontario very clearly states what you CAN and CAN NOT use while driving .
You CAN NOT use : -Hand-held wireless communications devices such as cell phones , smartphones -Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods , or other portable MP3 players , or portable games -Texting and emailing -Viewing display screens on devices not required for driving such as a laptop or DVD player You CAN use : -Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device -911 calls -Pressing the button of a hand-held device to activate hands-free mode for incoming or outbound calls -GPS units mounted on dashboards -Collision avoidance systems -Use by emergency services personnel such as police , fire and ambulance -Logistical transportation tracking devices used for commercial vehicles This is available on a PDF printout here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in Ontario it is now a ticketable offense to text, email, or navigate with your GPS while driving.
I don't know where they got this list of things you can't do, but the "official" handout from the government of Ontario very clearly states what you CAN and CANNOT use while driving.
You CANNOT use:
-Hand-held wireless communications devices such as cell phones, smartphones
-Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods, or other portable MP3 players, or portable games
-Texting and emailing
-Viewing display screens on devices not required for driving such as a laptop or DVD player  

You CAN use:
-Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device
-911 calls
-Pressing the button of a hand-held device to activate hands-free mode for incoming or outbound calls
-GPS units mounted on dashboards
-Collision avoidance systems
-Use by emergency services personnel such as police, fire and ambulance
-Logistical transportation tracking devices used for commercial vehicles  

This is available on a PDF printout here.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897019</id>
	<title>Perhaps they should bad pretty ladies jogging!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256743560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps they should bad all roadside advertising, people waving those stupid "GOING OUT OF BUSINESS" signs, radio in cars, informational road signs, pretty ladies jogging, erect giant curtains around accident sites, and anything else that can be considered a distraction.</p><p>This sounds like an asinine law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they should bad all roadside advertising , people waving those stupid " GOING OUT OF BUSINESS " signs , radio in cars , informational road signs , pretty ladies jogging , erect giant curtains around accident sites , and anything else that can be considered a distraction.This sounds like an asinine law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they should bad all roadside advertising, people waving those stupid "GOING OUT OF BUSINESS" signs, radio in cars, informational road signs, pretty ladies jogging, erect giant curtains around accident sites, and anything else that can be considered a distraction.This sounds like an asinine law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896041</id>
	<title>Yay!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256739600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(sarcasm) So does that mean that I can't use my Fleshlight anymore while I'm driving?  Good!  That's the ticket I needed to convince my g/f to do fellatio for me while I'm driving now..</p><p>"But honey, you have to!  I can't use electronic handheld electronic devices anymore, it's the law!" (/sarcasm)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( sarcasm ) So does that mean that I ca n't use my Fleshlight anymore while I 'm driving ?
Good ! That 's the ticket I needed to convince my g/f to do fellatio for me while I 'm driving now.. " But honey , you have to !
I ca n't use electronic handheld electronic devices anymore , it 's the law !
" ( /sarcasm )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(sarcasm) So does that mean that I can't use my Fleshlight anymore while I'm driving?
Good!  That's the ticket I needed to convince my g/f to do fellatio for me while I'm driving now.."But honey, you have to!
I can't use electronic handheld electronic devices anymore, it's the law!
" (/sarcasm)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</id>
	<title>It does not go too far</title>
	<author>cavehobbit</author>
	<datestamp>1256728920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the U.S., and I suspect Canada, cars are the instrument of death more often than guns are. Count then by gross total or per-capita population or per-capita car-owner/gun-owner, cars are more dangerous.</p><p>I know people that have been killed or injured by drivers distracted by lighting cigarettes, changing the radio or reaching for something that fell on the floor, like a CD or cassette. It is no different than if someone carelessly shoots a gun off without aiming or caring where it is pointing. Only luck prevents something bad happening.<br>I have been injured while biking by idiots not paying attention while driving, had my car hit by other drivers changing the radio.</p><p>So no, this law does not go too far, in fact it does not go far enough. It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.</p><p>Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined. If they are at fault charged and if convicted of a simple infraction their license revoked. If injury or worse is caused they should be jailed. They are a danger to others.</p><p>Everyone has a right to travel. No one has the right to endanger others. Those that do endanger others need to be held accountable for their actions, no matter how they do so: Car, knife, gun, chemical spill, whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the U.S. , and I suspect Canada , cars are the instrument of death more often than guns are .
Count then by gross total or per-capita population or per-capita car-owner/gun-owner , cars are more dangerous.I know people that have been killed or injured by drivers distracted by lighting cigarettes , changing the radio or reaching for something that fell on the floor , like a CD or cassette .
It is no different than if someone carelessly shoots a gun off without aiming or caring where it is pointing .
Only luck prevents something bad happening.I have been injured while biking by idiots not paying attention while driving , had my car hit by other drivers changing the radio.So no , this law does not go too far , in fact it does not go far enough .
It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined .
If they are at fault charged and if convicted of a simple infraction their license revoked .
If injury or worse is caused they should be jailed .
They are a danger to others.Everyone has a right to travel .
No one has the right to endanger others .
Those that do endanger others need to be held accountable for their actions , no matter how they do so : Car , knife , gun , chemical spill , whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the U.S., and I suspect Canada, cars are the instrument of death more often than guns are.
Count then by gross total or per-capita population or per-capita car-owner/gun-owner, cars are more dangerous.I know people that have been killed or injured by drivers distracted by lighting cigarettes, changing the radio or reaching for something that fell on the floor, like a CD or cassette.
It is no different than if someone carelessly shoots a gun off without aiming or caring where it is pointing.
Only luck prevents something bad happening.I have been injured while biking by idiots not paying attention while driving, had my car hit by other drivers changing the radio.So no, this law does not go too far, in fact it does not go far enough.
It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined.
If they are at fault charged and if convicted of a simple infraction their license revoked.
If injury or worse is caused they should be jailed.
They are a danger to others.Everyone has a right to travel.
No one has the right to endanger others.
Those that do endanger others need to be held accountable for their actions, no matter how they do so: Car, knife, gun, chemical spill, whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894967</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256731740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We do in Ontario too. I think it might be that the charge for reckless driving is too steep so people don't get dinged for mere irresponsible driving.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do in Ontario too .
I think it might be that the charge for reckless driving is too steep so people do n't get dinged for mere irresponsible driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do in Ontario too.
I think it might be that the charge for reckless driving is too steep so people don't get dinged for mere irresponsible driving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896301</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1256740800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heard years ago on the radio:
"Women farding in the car causes accidents and should be illegal!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heard years ago on the radio : " Women farding in the car causes accidents and should be illegal !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heard years ago on the radio:
"Women farding in the car causes accidents and should be illegal!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897261</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1256744520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come now, don't exaggerate.  Central Canada is Manitoba.  And the northern Ontarians aren't half bad, for easterners. It's just the ones who live way too close together south of the 49th parallel that get kind of crazy.</p><p>And I'm just visiting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come now , do n't exaggerate .
Central Canada is Manitoba .
And the northern Ontarians are n't half bad , for easterners .
It 's just the ones who live way too close together south of the 49th parallel that get kind of crazy.And I 'm just visiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come now, don't exaggerate.
Central Canada is Manitoba.
And the northern Ontarians aren't half bad, for easterners.
It's just the ones who live way too close together south of the 49th parallel that get kind of crazy.And I'm just visiting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895447</id>
	<title>Enough already!!</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1256735820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These handheld electronics bans are completely absurd and have no basis in reality or in science whatsoever. Why? Well, I am glad you asked. This bill states that a handheld cell phone is bad, but a hands-free one is ok. Well, science has shown again and again that the problem with using a cell phone while driving in the TALKING part, not holding the phone. If holding the phone were the problem, the ban would be on driving one handed. Having a conversation with a passenger would create the same distraction. This being said, there is no reasonable way we could possibly ban talking on a cell phone, especially when the same government almost certainly does everything they can to promote car pooling. <br> <br>

Texting and playing video games while driving are certainly not ok, but I would have thought that not looking at the road while you are driving would already be thoroughly well covered by previously existing laws (we would call it reckless endangerment in the U.S., not sure about Canada).</htmltext>
<tokenext>These handheld electronics bans are completely absurd and have no basis in reality or in science whatsoever .
Why ? Well , I am glad you asked .
This bill states that a handheld cell phone is bad , but a hands-free one is ok. Well , science has shown again and again that the problem with using a cell phone while driving in the TALKING part , not holding the phone .
If holding the phone were the problem , the ban would be on driving one handed .
Having a conversation with a passenger would create the same distraction .
This being said , there is no reasonable way we could possibly ban talking on a cell phone , especially when the same government almost certainly does everything they can to promote car pooling .
Texting and playing video games while driving are certainly not ok , but I would have thought that not looking at the road while you are driving would already be thoroughly well covered by previously existing laws ( we would call it reckless endangerment in the U.S. , not sure about Canada ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These handheld electronics bans are completely absurd and have no basis in reality or in science whatsoever.
Why? Well, I am glad you asked.
This bill states that a handheld cell phone is bad, but a hands-free one is ok. Well, science has shown again and again that the problem with using a cell phone while driving in the TALKING part, not holding the phone.
If holding the phone were the problem, the ban would be on driving one handed.
Having a conversation with a passenger would create the same distraction.
This being said, there is no reasonable way we could possibly ban talking on a cell phone, especially when the same government almost certainly does everything they can to promote car pooling.
Texting and playing video games while driving are certainly not ok, but I would have thought that not looking at the road while you are driving would already be thoroughly well covered by previously existing laws (we would call it reckless endangerment in the U.S., not sure about Canada).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895571</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1256736720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is, the perp can then argue they were driving with due care and attention, even when changing the radio, touching up their makeup, and drinking a coffee simultaneously. New laws like this take away the ambiguity and make it simpler for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is , the perp can then argue they were driving with due care and attention , even when changing the radio , touching up their makeup , and drinking a coffee simultaneously .
New laws like this take away the ambiguity and make it simpler for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is, the perp can then argue they were driving with due care and attention, even when changing the radio, touching up their makeup, and drinking a coffee simultaneously.
New laws like this take away the ambiguity and make it simpler for everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898841</id>
	<title>Sure, good idea</title>
	<author>Kenoli</author>
	<datestamp>1256751120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Though this was a good idea...</p></div><p>No it wasn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though this was a good idea...No it was n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though this was a good idea...No it wasn't.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895687</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1256737740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. First of all, we are talking about human beings here, or hairless apes with a prefrontal cortex. Even if you ban everything except for silently looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel, we will become distracted while driving. We are not robots, this is simply a fact of life.
<br> <br>As for your assertion that drivers involved in accidents have their cars impounded, that is simply fascism. First of all, you fail to take into account the innocent victims here. If a drunk driver blatantly runs a red light and crashes into me, my car needs to be impounded and my license suspended until they can figure out the cause? Who is going to make sure these claims are expedited? How am I (the innocent victim who had NOTHING to do with this accident happening) going to get to work?
<br> <br>As for your further assertion that anyone involved in an at-fault accident have their license revoked, well, you are an idiot. I have personally been in an accident that no reasonable person could ever call my fault, but I was technically still at fault according to the law (light turned green, idiot didn't go, I turned left, idiot realized the light was green and plowed into me). Extreme cases are already covered by the law -- anyone involved in an accident while driving recklessly can ALREADY be jailed. Your assertions here have no basis in fact, or in reality, and have no place in a free society of any kind.<br> <br>

The way to remedy this situation is NOT increased law enforcement, it is increased education. Driver's education is currently a total joke. Kids need to learn a bit about their own neurology behind the wheel. We need to incorporate exercises to show the limits of concentration, as well as the dangers of speeding and such. The licensing system also ought to be tightened -- right now anyone (including old geezers who cannot see, hear, or tell the difference between the gas and brake) can just walk in and be licensed to drive. We should make sure that drivers, before obtaining a license, understand all the inherent risks of operating a motor vehicle. These things will help, banning everything and throwing people in jail will not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
First of all , we are talking about human beings here , or hairless apes with a prefrontal cortex .
Even if you ban everything except for silently looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel , we will become distracted while driving .
We are not robots , this is simply a fact of life .
As for your assertion that drivers involved in accidents have their cars impounded , that is simply fascism .
First of all , you fail to take into account the innocent victims here .
If a drunk driver blatantly runs a red light and crashes into me , my car needs to be impounded and my license suspended until they can figure out the cause ?
Who is going to make sure these claims are expedited ?
How am I ( the innocent victim who had NOTHING to do with this accident happening ) going to get to work ?
As for your further assertion that anyone involved in an at-fault accident have their license revoked , well , you are an idiot .
I have personally been in an accident that no reasonable person could ever call my fault , but I was technically still at fault according to the law ( light turned green , idiot did n't go , I turned left , idiot realized the light was green and plowed into me ) .
Extreme cases are already covered by the law -- anyone involved in an accident while driving recklessly can ALREADY be jailed .
Your assertions here have no basis in fact , or in reality , and have no place in a free society of any kind .
The way to remedy this situation is NOT increased law enforcement , it is increased education .
Driver 's education is currently a total joke .
Kids need to learn a bit about their own neurology behind the wheel .
We need to incorporate exercises to show the limits of concentration , as well as the dangers of speeding and such .
The licensing system also ought to be tightened -- right now anyone ( including old geezers who can not see , hear , or tell the difference between the gas and brake ) can just walk in and be licensed to drive .
We should make sure that drivers , before obtaining a license , understand all the inherent risks of operating a motor vehicle .
These things will help , banning everything and throwing people in jail will not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
First of all, we are talking about human beings here, or hairless apes with a prefrontal cortex.
Even if you ban everything except for silently looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel, we will become distracted while driving.
We are not robots, this is simply a fact of life.
As for your assertion that drivers involved in accidents have their cars impounded, that is simply fascism.
First of all, you fail to take into account the innocent victims here.
If a drunk driver blatantly runs a red light and crashes into me, my car needs to be impounded and my license suspended until they can figure out the cause?
Who is going to make sure these claims are expedited?
How am I (the innocent victim who had NOTHING to do with this accident happening) going to get to work?
As for your further assertion that anyone involved in an at-fault accident have their license revoked, well, you are an idiot.
I have personally been in an accident that no reasonable person could ever call my fault, but I was technically still at fault according to the law (light turned green, idiot didn't go, I turned left, idiot realized the light was green and plowed into me).
Extreme cases are already covered by the law -- anyone involved in an accident while driving recklessly can ALREADY be jailed.
Your assertions here have no basis in fact, or in reality, and have no place in a free society of any kind.
The way to remedy this situation is NOT increased law enforcement, it is increased education.
Driver's education is currently a total joke.
Kids need to learn a bit about their own neurology behind the wheel.
We need to incorporate exercises to show the limits of concentration, as well as the dangers of speeding and such.
The licensing system also ought to be tightened -- right now anyone (including old geezers who cannot see, hear, or tell the difference between the gas and brake) can just walk in and be licensed to drive.
We should make sure that drivers, before obtaining a license, understand all the inherent risks of operating a motor vehicle.
These things will help, banning everything and throwing people in jail will not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895073</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>shabble</author>
	<datestamp>1256732700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because "Driving without care or attention" has two possible problems.</p><p>1 - It is easier for a cop to say "I am fining you because you are talking on your cell while driving" as opposed to "I am fining you for driving without care or attention because you are talking on your cellphone while driving" and to make the point without wasting both parties time.</p></div><p>And by the power of "Slippery Slope," that could be argued (and is, hence the ridiculous state of affairs I allude to;) to apply to absolutely anything that could cause anyone to drive without "due care or attention," like drinking, smoking, talking to passengers...</p><p>Why have 100's of individual laws to cover every eventuality, when a <i>carefully worded</i> single law to cover them all would suffice? (Yes, I realise there's a problem with laws in other areas that are too general - I don't believe this to be the case with this one)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2 - "Driving without care or attention" leaves too much room for subjective argumentation - "But I can drive just as well while on the cell as when I am not!" and in (1) above it can become really problematic.</p></div><p> Take it to a judge then. The roadside is not the place for these sorts of arguments, in much the same way it isn't the place to argue whether you were driving 35 in a 30 zone or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because " Driving without care or attention " has two possible problems.1 - It is easier for a cop to say " I am fining you because you are talking on your cell while driving " as opposed to " I am fining you for driving without care or attention because you are talking on your cellphone while driving " and to make the point without wasting both parties time.And by the power of " Slippery Slope , " that could be argued ( and is , hence the ridiculous state of affairs I allude to ; ) to apply to absolutely anything that could cause anyone to drive without " due care or attention , " like drinking , smoking , talking to passengers...Why have 100 's of individual laws to cover every eventuality , when a carefully worded single law to cover them all would suffice ?
( Yes , I realise there 's a problem with laws in other areas that are too general - I do n't believe this to be the case with this one ) 2 - " Driving without care or attention " leaves too much room for subjective argumentation - " But I can drive just as well while on the cell as when I am not !
" and in ( 1 ) above it can become really problematic .
Take it to a judge then .
The roadside is not the place for these sorts of arguments , in much the same way it is n't the place to argue whether you were driving 35 in a 30 zone or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because "Driving without care or attention" has two possible problems.1 - It is easier for a cop to say "I am fining you because you are talking on your cell while driving" as opposed to "I am fining you for driving without care or attention because you are talking on your cellphone while driving" and to make the point without wasting both parties time.And by the power of "Slippery Slope," that could be argued (and is, hence the ridiculous state of affairs I allude to;) to apply to absolutely anything that could cause anyone to drive without "due care or attention," like drinking, smoking, talking to passengers...Why have 100's of individual laws to cover every eventuality, when a carefully worded single law to cover them all would suffice?
(Yes, I realise there's a problem with laws in other areas that are too general - I don't believe this to be the case with this one)2 - "Driving without care or attention" leaves too much room for subjective argumentation - "But I can drive just as well while on the cell as when I am not!
" and in (1) above it can become really problematic.
Take it to a judge then.
The roadside is not the place for these sorts of arguments, in much the same way it isn't the place to argue whether you were driving 35 in a 30 zone or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894875</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1256730600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I too would much prefer a more broad rule.</p><p>I find people talking on cellphones tend to be looking roughly straight ahead. Attention is diverted, but it's not as bad as a lot of other situations.</p><p>All my close calls involved other devices. One woman was putting on lipstick. Another guy was changing a CD. Another pulled into a 3-way intersection while looking for sunglasses.</p><p>I was able to swerve (slightly) into the wrong lane to avoid all three, but in busier locations that'd make the situation far worse. I happen to live in a small city in BC(&lt;100k people), but in a large city of millions, with dozens of lanes of traffic, you just can't pull off the moves I did. It'd mean bad accidents, so I fully understand the desire to prevent it.</p><p>Regarding cellphones... many young people can operate them without looking at the screen or phone, and can drop them in an instant if necessary to grab the wheel. I'm really worried about <i>other stuff</i> more. Anything that takes your eyes off the road...</p><p>(Oh, and FYI - I'm responsible and pull over when making calls. You like to drink morning coffee huh, on the way to work? Well screw you!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too would much prefer a more broad rule.I find people talking on cellphones tend to be looking roughly straight ahead .
Attention is diverted , but it 's not as bad as a lot of other situations.All my close calls involved other devices .
One woman was putting on lipstick .
Another guy was changing a CD .
Another pulled into a 3-way intersection while looking for sunglasses.I was able to swerve ( slightly ) into the wrong lane to avoid all three , but in busier locations that 'd make the situation far worse .
I happen to live in a small city in BC ( Regarding cellphones... many young people can operate them without looking at the screen or phone , and can drop them in an instant if necessary to grab the wheel .
I 'm really worried about other stuff more .
Anything that takes your eyes off the road... ( Oh , and FYI - I 'm responsible and pull over when making calls .
You like to drink morning coffee huh , on the way to work ?
Well screw you !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too would much prefer a more broad rule.I find people talking on cellphones tend to be looking roughly straight ahead.
Attention is diverted, but it's not as bad as a lot of other situations.All my close calls involved other devices.
One woman was putting on lipstick.
Another guy was changing a CD.
Another pulled into a 3-way intersection while looking for sunglasses.I was able to swerve (slightly) into the wrong lane to avoid all three, but in busier locations that'd make the situation far worse.
I happen to live in a small city in BC(Regarding cellphones... many young people can operate them without looking at the screen or phone, and can drop them in an instant if necessary to grab the wheel.
I'm really worried about other stuff more.
Anything that takes your eyes off the road...(Oh, and FYI - I'm responsible and pull over when making calls.
You like to drink morning coffee huh, on the way to work?
Well screw you!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894803</id>
	<title>Where is the problem ?!?</title>
	<author>ctrl-alt-canc</author>
	<datestamp>1256729700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My car is controlled by a joystick, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My car is controlled by a joystick , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My car is controlled by a joystick, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895139</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256733300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we go by our capital or population Saskatchewan is Western. But I'm just being snide.<br> <br>As an Ontarian I'd like to say Thank You. Dear lord I much prefer relating to Europe over the US any day. Are you saying we care more about health care than you? (I know that tommy douglas was from saskatchewan). Do we have... lower crime rates? Less religious fanatics? Less military? (yes I view this as a good thing) Really, I don't know what you were pointing to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we go by our capital or population Saskatchewan is Western .
But I 'm just being snide .
As an Ontarian I 'd like to say Thank You .
Dear lord I much prefer relating to Europe over the US any day .
Are you saying we care more about health care than you ?
( I know that tommy douglas was from saskatchewan ) .
Do we have... lower crime rates ?
Less religious fanatics ?
Less military ?
( yes I view this as a good thing ) Really , I do n't know what you were pointing to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we go by our capital or population Saskatchewan is Western.
But I'm just being snide.
As an Ontarian I'd like to say Thank You.
Dear lord I much prefer relating to Europe over the US any day.
Are you saying we care more about health care than you?
(I know that tommy douglas was from saskatchewan).
Do we have... lower crime rates?
Less religious fanatics?
Less military?
(yes I view this as a good thing) Really, I don't know what you were pointing to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896029</id>
	<title>Incorrect summary</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1256739480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The actual law passed prevents the use of hand-held entertainment or communication devices.  Dash-mounted devices are not included.  Non-entertainment and communication devices are not included.</p><p>This does not in fact prevent someone from doing their masquera while driving (which I've seen) or painting their nails (which I've also observed) or curling their hair (seen that too).  Nor will it prevent or give special mention to people who fumble on the floor of the passenger side for the CD they dropped, while driving at high speeds and weaving around due to a total lack of attention on the road.</p><p>I'd much rather let people dial their phones with their hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual law passed prevents the use of hand-held entertainment or communication devices .
Dash-mounted devices are not included .
Non-entertainment and communication devices are not included.This does not in fact prevent someone from doing their masquera while driving ( which I 've seen ) or painting their nails ( which I 've also observed ) or curling their hair ( seen that too ) .
Nor will it prevent or give special mention to people who fumble on the floor of the passenger side for the CD they dropped , while driving at high speeds and weaving around due to a total lack of attention on the road.I 'd much rather let people dial their phones with their hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual law passed prevents the use of hand-held entertainment or communication devices.
Dash-mounted devices are not included.
Non-entertainment and communication devices are not included.This does not in fact prevent someone from doing their masquera while driving (which I've seen) or painting their nails (which I've also observed) or curling their hair (seen that too).
Nor will it prevent or give special mention to people who fumble on the floor of the passenger side for the CD they dropped, while driving at high speeds and weaving around due to a total lack of attention on the road.I'd much rather let people dial their phones with their hands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897417</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guilty until proven innocent, sounds about like how the courts in the U.S. work now... Of course that's despite the blatant trampling of our Constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guilty until proven innocent , sounds about like how the courts in the U.S. work now... Of course that 's despite the blatant trampling of our Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guilty until proven innocent, sounds about like how the courts in the U.S. work now... Of course that's despite the blatant trampling of our Constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896269</id>
	<title>Re:And In Related News:</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1256740680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was an issue when the anti-smoking legislation was brought in in Alberta and still stands. A discussion was started for a possible exemption for truckers because it's obviously not a situation that the original law intended to cover but I don't think it went anywhere. If I'm not mistaken though, I believe that the police were instructed to not really pay much attention to smoking truckers.</p><p>I don't like having unwritten rules like simply turning a blind eye to truckers in particular so an exemption should be codified into law. Nonetheless, I bet the ticket was written because the trucker pissed off the cop, not because the cop was concerned for the drivers health.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was an issue when the anti-smoking legislation was brought in in Alberta and still stands .
A discussion was started for a possible exemption for truckers because it 's obviously not a situation that the original law intended to cover but I do n't think it went anywhere .
If I 'm not mistaken though , I believe that the police were instructed to not really pay much attention to smoking truckers.I do n't like having unwritten rules like simply turning a blind eye to truckers in particular so an exemption should be codified into law .
Nonetheless , I bet the ticket was written because the trucker pissed off the cop , not because the cop was concerned for the drivers health .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was an issue when the anti-smoking legislation was brought in in Alberta and still stands.
A discussion was started for a possible exemption for truckers because it's obviously not a situation that the original law intended to cover but I don't think it went anywhere.
If I'm not mistaken though, I believe that the police were instructed to not really pay much attention to smoking truckers.I don't like having unwritten rules like simply turning a blind eye to truckers in particular so an exemption should be codified into law.
Nonetheless, I bet the ticket was written because the trucker pissed off the cop, not because the cop was concerned for the drivers health.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902295</id>
	<title>Re:Stick</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256722680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>if you aren't allowed to take the hands off the wheel, you can't drive stick (unless you stay on first gear all the trip).<br>I guess since all yanks drive an automatic geared car this is no problem</i></p><ol> <li>It's a Canadian law, not a US law</li><li>TFS is bogus; the law says no such thing (as others have noted above)</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you are n't allowed to take the hands off the wheel , you ca n't drive stick ( unless you stay on first gear all the trip ) .I guess since all yanks drive an automatic geared car this is no problem It 's a Canadian law , not a US lawTFS is bogus ; the law says no such thing ( as others have noted above )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you aren't allowed to take the hands off the wheel, you can't drive stick (unless you stay on first gear all the trip).I guess since all yanks drive an automatic geared car this is no problem It's a Canadian law, not a US lawTFS is bogus; the law says no such thing (as others have noted above)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902785</id>
	<title>taken a little too far</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1256725320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is why its called a slippery slope..  And yet another fine example of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is why its called a slippery slope.. And yet another fine example of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is why its called a slippery slope..  And yet another fine example of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895475</id>
	<title>what about sneezing ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are about to sneeze while driving, do you;<br>A; Remove a hand from the wheel to cover a sneeze and incur a $500 fine.<br>B; Sneeze all over the winscreen and steering wheel, obsucring the view and making the steering difficult, if not discusting.<br>C; Something else</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are about to sneeze while driving , do you ; A ; Remove a hand from the wheel to cover a sneeze and incur a $ 500 fine.B ; Sneeze all over the winscreen and steering wheel , obsucring the view and making the steering difficult , if not discusting.C ; Something else</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are about to sneeze while driving, do you;A; Remove a hand from the wheel to cover a sneeze and incur a $500 fine.B; Sneeze all over the winscreen and steering wheel, obsucring the view and making the steering difficult, if not discusting.C; Something else</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897483</id>
	<title>Re:Correct. The summary should be tagged "troll"</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1256745420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And once you reach the age of 80 your blood runs cold at the thought that you used to drive over 20mph.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And once you reach the age of 80 your blood runs cold at the thought that you used to drive over 20mph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And once you reach the age of 80 your blood runs cold at the thought that you used to drive over 20mph.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895977</id>
	<title>A picture's worth a thousand comments...</title>
	<author>Starboard</author>
	<datestamp>1256739300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.newyorkerstore.com/October-12-2009/I-wasnt-texting-I-was-building-this-ship-in-a-bottle/invt/133708" title="newyorkerstore.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newyorkerstore.com/October-12-2009/I-wasnt-texting-I-was-building-this-ship-in-a-bottle/invt/133708</a> [newyorkerstore.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.newyorkerstore.com/October-12-2009/I-wasnt-texting-I-was-building-this-ship-in-a-bottle/invt/133708 [ newyorkerstore.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.newyorkerstore.com/October-12-2009/I-wasnt-texting-I-was-building-this-ship-in-a-bottle/invt/133708 [newyorkerstore.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895499</id>
	<title>Re:Terrible Summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"* Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods, or other portable MP3 players,"</p><p>Whats the difference between 'operating' an iPOD/mp3 player (in the case of listening to it) and operating a car stereo system (so fscking loud that you can hear it 5 blocks away)</p><p>I agree that changing tracks/stations on either type of in car entertainment is distracting to the driver, and should be discouraged, but if you don't have to fiddle with it then it should not be a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" * Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods , or other portable MP3 players , " Whats the difference between 'operating ' an iPOD/mp3 player ( in the case of listening to it ) and operating a car stereo system ( so fscking loud that you can hear it 5 blocks away ) I agree that changing tracks/stations on either type of in car entertainment is distracting to the driver , and should be discouraged , but if you do n't have to fiddle with it then it should not be a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"* Hand-held electronic entertainment devices such as iPods, or other portable MP3 players,"Whats the difference between 'operating' an iPOD/mp3 player (in the case of listening to it) and operating a car stereo system (so fscking loud that you can hear it 5 blocks away)I agree that changing tracks/stations on either type of in car entertainment is distracting to the driver, and should be discouraged, but if you don't have to fiddle with it then it should not be a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898823</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1256751060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably not.  Per capita, the gun death rate in Canada is 4.78 while the vehicular death rate is 10.3.  Indeed, more vehicle deaths, but I find it very likely that there are more than twice as many drivers than gun owners.</p><p>In the US the gun death rate is 11.66 while the vehicular death rate is 15.8.  Pretty similar.  Again, I suspect there are more drivers than gun owners (although perhaps a closer gap).</p><p>While I couldn't find any persons-with-guns rates, I did find households-with-guns.  The Canadian average is 29.1\% while the US average is 39\%.  Strangely, I couldn't find a households-with-a-car stat.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_firearm-related\_death\_ratehttp://www.factbook.net/EGRF\_Regional\_analyses\_HMCs.htm" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_firearm-related\_death\_ratehttp://www.factbook.net/EGRF\_Regional\_analyses\_HMCs.htm</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.allcountries.org/gun\_ownership\_rates.html" title="allcountries.org">http://www.allcountries.org/gun\_ownership\_rates.html</a> [allcountries.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not .
Per capita , the gun death rate in Canada is 4.78 while the vehicular death rate is 10.3 .
Indeed , more vehicle deaths , but I find it very likely that there are more than twice as many drivers than gun owners.In the US the gun death rate is 11.66 while the vehicular death rate is 15.8 .
Pretty similar .
Again , I suspect there are more drivers than gun owners ( although perhaps a closer gap ) .While I could n't find any persons-with-guns rates , I did find households-with-guns .
The Canadian average is 29.1 \ % while the US average is 39 \ % .
Strangely , I could n't find a households-with-a-car stat.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _countries \ _by \ _firearm-related \ _death \ _ratehttp : //www.factbook.net/EGRF \ _Regional \ _analyses \ _HMCs.htm [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.allcountries.org/gun \ _ownership \ _rates.html [ allcountries.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not.
Per capita, the gun death rate in Canada is 4.78 while the vehicular death rate is 10.3.
Indeed, more vehicle deaths, but I find it very likely that there are more than twice as many drivers than gun owners.In the US the gun death rate is 11.66 while the vehicular death rate is 15.8.
Pretty similar.
Again, I suspect there are more drivers than gun owners (although perhaps a closer gap).While I couldn't find any persons-with-guns rates, I did find households-with-guns.
The Canadian average is 29.1\% while the US average is 39\%.
Strangely, I couldn't find a households-with-a-car stat.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_firearm-related\_death\_ratehttp://www.factbook.net/EGRF\_Regional\_analyses\_HMCs.htm [wikipedia.org]http://www.allcountries.org/gun\_ownership\_rates.html [allcountries.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896633</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256742060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, 'blame Canada' - to put it in context, most Canadians west of Ontario, view Ontario in the same way most Americans view France - that is, hopelessly and utterly broken. So stuff like this isn't a surprise - I don't mean to troll, but those easterners are about as blissfully statist as you can get and still be called a democracy.</p><p>Oh, and for those Ontarians in the audience? Yeah, 'Central Canada' would be Saskatchewan. Anything east of that is 'Eastern'.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>You speak for the whole country when you say this? I didn't know that you,   "MrMista\_B" were a representative for Canada!</p><p>Another thing,  there are like 2 people in Saskatchewan. So suck it! Ontario FTW!!!</p><p>And Slashdot, most of Canada hates on Ontario (more specifically Toronto) because they're poopy pants and jealous, and wish they lived in a place this great.</p><p>Immature joking aside,</p><p>I thought Canadians just disliked Toronto? Whats wrong with the rest of Ontario? Besides the GTA (Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Scarborough, etc.) It's just small towns and cities. Not much different than the rest of Canada.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , 'blame Canada ' - to put it in context , most Canadians west of Ontario , view Ontario in the same way most Americans view France - that is , hopelessly and utterly broken .
So stuff like this is n't a surprise - I do n't mean to troll , but those easterners are about as blissfully statist as you can get and still be called a democracy.Oh , and for those Ontarians in the audience ?
Yeah , 'Central Canada ' would be Saskatchewan .
Anything east of that is 'Eastern' .
: ) You speak for the whole country when you say this ?
I did n't know that you , " MrMista \ _B " were a representative for Canada ! Another thing , there are like 2 people in Saskatchewan .
So suck it !
Ontario FTW ! !
! And Slashdot , most of Canada hates on Ontario ( more specifically Toronto ) because they 're poopy pants and jealous , and wish they lived in a place this great.Immature joking aside,I thought Canadians just disliked Toronto ?
Whats wrong with the rest of Ontario ?
Besides the GTA ( Toronto , Mississauga , Brampton , Scarborough , etc .
) It 's just small towns and cities .
Not much different than the rest of Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, 'blame Canada' - to put it in context, most Canadians west of Ontario, view Ontario in the same way most Americans view France - that is, hopelessly and utterly broken.
So stuff like this isn't a surprise - I don't mean to troll, but those easterners are about as blissfully statist as you can get and still be called a democracy.Oh, and for those Ontarians in the audience?
Yeah, 'Central Canada' would be Saskatchewan.
Anything east of that is 'Eastern'.
:)You speak for the whole country when you say this?
I didn't know that you,   "MrMista\_B" were a representative for Canada!Another thing,  there are like 2 people in Saskatchewan.
So suck it!
Ontario FTW!!
!And Slashdot, most of Canada hates on Ontario (more specifically Toronto) because they're poopy pants and jealous, and wish they lived in a place this great.Immature joking aside,I thought Canadians just disliked Toronto?
Whats wrong with the rest of Ontario?
Besides the GTA (Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Scarborough, etc.
) It's just small towns and cities.
Not much different than the rest of Canada.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896195</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1256740440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And by the power of "Slippery Slope," that could be argued (and is, hence the ridiculous state of affairs I allude to;) to apply to absolutely anything that could cause anyone to drive without "due care or attention," like drinking, smoking, talking to passengers...</i></p><p><i>Why have 100's of individual laws to cover every eventuality, when a carefully worded single law to cover them all would suffice? (Yes, I realise there's a problem with laws in other areas that are too general - I don't believe this to be the case with this one)<br></i></p><p>Because this NEW law gets passed, and the 100s of individual laws still remain.</p><p>So you don't get charged with 'Driving while using phone'  you get charged with that AND 'Driving without care or attention'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And by the power of " Slippery Slope , " that could be argued ( and is , hence the ridiculous state of affairs I allude to ; ) to apply to absolutely anything that could cause anyone to drive without " due care or attention , " like drinking , smoking , talking to passengers...Why have 100 's of individual laws to cover every eventuality , when a carefully worded single law to cover them all would suffice ?
( Yes , I realise there 's a problem with laws in other areas that are too general - I do n't believe this to be the case with this one ) Because this NEW law gets passed , and the 100s of individual laws still remain.So you do n't get charged with 'Driving while using phone ' you get charged with that AND 'Driving without care or attention' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And by the power of "Slippery Slope," that could be argued (and is, hence the ridiculous state of affairs I allude to;) to apply to absolutely anything that could cause anyone to drive without "due care or attention," like drinking, smoking, talking to passengers...Why have 100's of individual laws to cover every eventuality, when a carefully worded single law to cover them all would suffice?
(Yes, I realise there's a problem with laws in other areas that are too general - I don't believe this to be the case with this one)Because this NEW law gets passed, and the 100s of individual laws still remain.So you don't get charged with 'Driving while using phone'  you get charged with that AND 'Driving without care or attention'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895997</id>
	<title>Re:Get off your high horse</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1256739420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>First of all there is no "right to travel". </i></p><p>Yes, there is, and courts have upheld it:  <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel" title="usconstitution.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel</a> [usconstitution.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all there is no " right to travel " .
Yes , there is , and courts have upheld it : http : //www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html # travel [ usconstitution.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all there is no "right to travel".
Yes, there is, and courts have upheld it:  http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel [usconstitution.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895439</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1256735760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I drink coffee while driving plenty. I have these neat little things called cupholders and travelers mugs with just a small opening at the top. I turn, shift up or down as is appropriate, and on straightaways when I can safely steer with one hand, I bring the cup to my mouth with the other hand. One second later, with my eyes never having left the road, the cup is back down in the cupholder, and I'm one sip closer to being even more alert and careful because of the caffeine. This is a problem how, exactly?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I drink coffee while driving plenty .
I have these neat little things called cupholders and travelers mugs with just a small opening at the top .
I turn , shift up or down as is appropriate , and on straightaways when I can safely steer with one hand , I bring the cup to my mouth with the other hand .
One second later , with my eyes never having left the road , the cup is back down in the cupholder , and I 'm one sip closer to being even more alert and careful because of the caffeine .
This is a problem how , exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I drink coffee while driving plenty.
I have these neat little things called cupholders and travelers mugs with just a small opening at the top.
I turn, shift up or down as is appropriate, and on straightaways when I can safely steer with one hand, I bring the cup to my mouth with the other hand.
One second later, with my eyes never having left the road, the cup is back down in the cupholder, and I'm one sip closer to being even more alert and careful because of the caffeine.
This is a problem how, exactly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29906045</id>
	<title>Though this was a good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Though this was a good idea, it seems to have been taken a little too far."</p><p>No.  It was never a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Though this was a good idea , it seems to have been taken a little too far. " No .
It was never a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Though this was a good idea, it seems to have been taken a little too far."No.
It was never a good idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895509</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>teuluPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1256736360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(And, yes, the UK does have the first offense, but they still felt the need to create a special law for mobile phone usage.)</p></div><p>...and people still ignore it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( And , yes , the UK does have the first offense , but they still felt the need to create a special law for mobile phone usage .
) ...and people still ignore it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(And, yes, the UK does have the first offense, but they still felt the need to create a special law for mobile phone usage.
)...and people still ignore it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896273</id>
	<title>Re:Correct. The summary should be tagged "troll"</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1256740680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, no. The section added to the law (s. 78.1, Highway Traffic Act) does not include getting into an accident while eating an egg McMuffin, and I can't really see how they could shoe-horn that one in without going to a lot of trouble.</p><p>Of course, they don't need to. If you cause an accident while eating your breakfast, you can be charged with careless driving, and instead of the $1k fine and points, you can go to jail, have your license revoked, and pay a (much bigger) fine.</p><p>I posted the text of s. 78.1 <a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1420855&amp;cid=29896109" title="slashdot.org">here</a> [slashdot.org] if you're interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , no .
The section added to the law ( s. 78.1 , Highway Traffic Act ) does not include getting into an accident while eating an egg McMuffin , and I ca n't really see how they could shoe-horn that one in without going to a lot of trouble.Of course , they do n't need to .
If you cause an accident while eating your breakfast , you can be charged with careless driving , and instead of the $ 1k fine and points , you can go to jail , have your license revoked , and pay a ( much bigger ) fine.I posted the text of s. 78.1 here [ slashdot.org ] if you 're interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, no.
The section added to the law (s. 78.1, Highway Traffic Act) does not include getting into an accident while eating an egg McMuffin, and I can't really see how they could shoe-horn that one in without going to a lot of trouble.Of course, they don't need to.
If you cause an accident while eating your breakfast, you can be charged with careless driving, and instead of the $1k fine and points, you can go to jail, have your license revoked, and pay a (much bigger) fine.I posted the text of s. 78.1 here [slashdot.org] if you're interested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902005</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>New laws like this take away the ambiguity and make it simpler for everyone.</p></div><p>You'd like to think that, but it's just not the case.  Laws like this don't simplify, they just create a whole different set of complexities.  The OP of this thread has some great examples.  Ticketed for sipping water while stopped?  That protects nobody.  So now what do we do? Go back and add an "unless you're stopped" clause?</p><p>Anybody with any experience in complex systems will tell you that if you try to enumerate and handle every case individually, you will fail.  And you'll have a ridiculous, unmaintainable mess to deal with as a reward for your efforts.  Exhibit A: The US justice system.  It's insanely complex and spends way too much time enforcing politically-minded technicalities instead of justice.  You could get pedantic about the definition of justice, but I believe there are such things as unjust laws.</p><p>The bottom line is that justice is rarely cut-and-dry.  We try to make it so and end up creating a system with loopholes readily exploitable by the rich and powerful.  I'd like to say I see a solution to this problem, but I don't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>New laws like this take away the ambiguity and make it simpler for everyone.You 'd like to think that , but it 's just not the case .
Laws like this do n't simplify , they just create a whole different set of complexities .
The OP of this thread has some great examples .
Ticketed for sipping water while stopped ?
That protects nobody .
So now what do we do ?
Go back and add an " unless you 're stopped " clause ? Anybody with any experience in complex systems will tell you that if you try to enumerate and handle every case individually , you will fail .
And you 'll have a ridiculous , unmaintainable mess to deal with as a reward for your efforts .
Exhibit A : The US justice system .
It 's insanely complex and spends way too much time enforcing politically-minded technicalities instead of justice .
You could get pedantic about the definition of justice , but I believe there are such things as unjust laws.The bottom line is that justice is rarely cut-and-dry .
We try to make it so and end up creating a system with loopholes readily exploitable by the rich and powerful .
I 'd like to say I see a solution to this problem , but I do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New laws like this take away the ambiguity and make it simpler for everyone.You'd like to think that, but it's just not the case.
Laws like this don't simplify, they just create a whole different set of complexities.
The OP of this thread has some great examples.
Ticketed for sipping water while stopped?
That protects nobody.
So now what do we do?
Go back and add an "unless you're stopped" clause?Anybody with any experience in complex systems will tell you that if you try to enumerate and handle every case individually, you will fail.
And you'll have a ridiculous, unmaintainable mess to deal with as a reward for your efforts.
Exhibit A: The US justice system.
It's insanely complex and spends way too much time enforcing politically-minded technicalities instead of justice.
You could get pedantic about the definition of justice, but I believe there are such things as unjust laws.The bottom line is that justice is rarely cut-and-dry.
We try to make it so and end up creating a system with loopholes readily exploitable by the rich and powerful.
I'd like to say I see a solution to this problem, but I don't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899273</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>AGMW</author>
	<datestamp>1256753100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... I'm really worried about <i>other stuff</i> more.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>
A mother on the school run with kids misbehaving/fighting in the back for example?
</p><p>
I recently saw the aftermath of a (very!) minor accident where a guy was knocked off his pushbike by a young lady driving a car. He was thankfully uninjured and magnanimously let it go by suggesting she pay more attention in future because next time it might be his kids! I noticed that the young lady was wearing a Muslim-style headscarf which was not pinned back beside her head (which they often are) and was pretty much acting as blinkers! Arriving after the fact I've no idea if it was involved in the incident but it could easily have been a factor because of the reduced peripheral vision.<br>
Even worse would be devout Muslims wearing the full <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa" title="wikipedia.org">Burkha</a> [wikipedia.org], where there is often only a very small opening to look out - does this happen? In the UK it certainly does and it really makes a mockery of the safety laws!<br>
See also driving whilst wearing hoodies.<br>
See also darkened (AKA "privacy") Glass - at night - and the driver wearing sunglasses too!
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I 'm really worried about other stuff more .
.. . A mother on the school run with kids misbehaving/fighting in the back for example ?
I recently saw the aftermath of a ( very !
) minor accident where a guy was knocked off his pushbike by a young lady driving a car .
He was thankfully uninjured and magnanimously let it go by suggesting she pay more attention in future because next time it might be his kids !
I noticed that the young lady was wearing a Muslim-style headscarf which was not pinned back beside her head ( which they often are ) and was pretty much acting as blinkers !
Arriving after the fact I 've no idea if it was involved in the incident but it could easily have been a factor because of the reduced peripheral vision .
Even worse would be devout Muslims wearing the full Burkha [ wikipedia.org ] , where there is often only a very small opening to look out - does this happen ?
In the UK it certainly does and it really makes a mockery of the safety laws !
See also driving whilst wearing hoodies .
See also darkened ( AKA " privacy " ) Glass - at night - and the driver wearing sunglasses too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I'm really worried about other stuff more.
...
A mother on the school run with kids misbehaving/fighting in the back for example?
I recently saw the aftermath of a (very!
) minor accident where a guy was knocked off his pushbike by a young lady driving a car.
He was thankfully uninjured and magnanimously let it go by suggesting she pay more attention in future because next time it might be his kids!
I noticed that the young lady was wearing a Muslim-style headscarf which was not pinned back beside her head (which they often are) and was pretty much acting as blinkers!
Arriving after the fact I've no idea if it was involved in the incident but it could easily have been a factor because of the reduced peripheral vision.
Even worse would be devout Muslims wearing the full Burkha [wikipedia.org], where there is often only a very small opening to look out - does this happen?
In the UK it certainly does and it really makes a mockery of the safety laws!
See also driving whilst wearing hoodies.
See also darkened (AKA "privacy") Glass - at night - and the driver wearing sunglasses too!

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896643</id>
	<title>Re:And In Related News:</title>
	<author>Xtacy</author>
	<datestamp>1256742120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the upside, if his truck is his workplace, he should be able to talk on the phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the upside , if his truck is his workplace , he should be able to talk on the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the upside, if his truck is his workplace, he should be able to talk on the phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896227</id>
	<title>Pets in Vehicles</title>
	<author>Locarius</author>
	<datestamp>1256740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an Ontario resident I'm happy that I should no longer see texting while driving (yes it really happens).  Something that concerns me even more is the number of drivers I see with their pets sitting on their lap or laying in the back window while they drive. One can remain in control of a vehicle while talking on the phone, but if Fido jumps on your lap from the passenger seat or backseat, it is very easy to lose control.

All pets should be in a kennel or in a caged off area of the vehicle (station wagon, van), otherwise a fine should be immediately issued.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an Ontario resident I 'm happy that I should no longer see texting while driving ( yes it really happens ) .
Something that concerns me even more is the number of drivers I see with their pets sitting on their lap or laying in the back window while they drive .
One can remain in control of a vehicle while talking on the phone , but if Fido jumps on your lap from the passenger seat or backseat , it is very easy to lose control .
All pets should be in a kennel or in a caged off area of the vehicle ( station wagon , van ) , otherwise a fine should be immediately issued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an Ontario resident I'm happy that I should no longer see texting while driving (yes it really happens).
Something that concerns me even more is the number of drivers I see with their pets sitting on their lap or laying in the back window while they drive.
One can remain in control of a vehicle while talking on the phone, but if Fido jumps on your lap from the passenger seat or backseat, it is very easy to lose control.
All pets should be in a kennel or in a caged off area of the vehicle (station wagon, van), otherwise a fine should be immediately issued.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894957</id>
	<title>Re:RTFS</title>
	<author>camperslo</author>
	<datestamp>1256731680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The law applies to handheld electronic devices. So unless your coffee mug is electronic or your climate control is handheld you are probably fine with coffee and a nice temp in your car</i></p><p>Marketing opportunities to save Michigan:</p><p>Wind-up (battery-free) vibrators<br>Microphones with VOX (voice-activated switch) to replace PTT (push to talk) CB microphones</p><p>Opportunities for bored developers:</p><p>Drive-by Rick-rolling exploits for the iPhone, iPod touch, and Zune</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law applies to handheld electronic devices .
So unless your coffee mug is electronic or your climate control is handheld you are probably fine with coffee and a nice temp in your carMarketing opportunities to save Michigan : Wind-up ( battery-free ) vibratorsMicrophones with VOX ( voice-activated switch ) to replace PTT ( push to talk ) CB microphonesOpportunities for bored developers : Drive-by Rick-rolling exploits for the iPhone , iPod touch , and Zune</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law applies to handheld electronic devices.
So unless your coffee mug is electronic or your climate control is handheld you are probably fine with coffee and a nice temp in your carMarketing opportunities to save Michigan:Wind-up (battery-free) vibratorsMicrophones with VOX (voice-activated switch) to replace PTT (push to talk) CB microphonesOpportunities for bored developers:Drive-by Rick-rolling exploits for the iPhone, iPod touch, and Zune</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898465</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1256749440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To get a blanket ban you need a new law. Otherwise when you try to prosecute someone who was talking on the phone while stationary at the lights will argue in court that they were driving with due care and attention and a jury may well agree with them.</p><p>It's the difference between "it's usually bad and please don't do it" and "you must stop doing it now or else".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To get a blanket ban you need a new law .
Otherwise when you try to prosecute someone who was talking on the phone while stationary at the lights will argue in court that they were driving with due care and attention and a jury may well agree with them.It 's the difference between " it 's usually bad and please do n't do it " and " you must stop doing it now or else " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To get a blanket ban you need a new law.
Otherwise when you try to prosecute someone who was talking on the phone while stationary at the lights will argue in court that they were driving with due care and attention and a jury may well agree with them.It's the difference between "it's usually bad and please don't do it" and "you must stop doing it now or else".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29900491</id>
	<title>This would have saved me a crash</title>
	<author>tchdab1</author>
	<datestamp>1256757720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Several years ago I was accelerating away from a toll booth, trying to ignore noisy fighting kids in the back seat and fiddling with the air conditioner controls enough to take my eyes off the road and not realize until too late that the car far out in front of me was in fact stopped.<br>I total'ed the car when I hit it, and thankfully we were all ok.</p><p>I might have had a different result if there was a law preventing fiddling with dashboard controls.<br>Not that I like the concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several years ago I was accelerating away from a toll booth , trying to ignore noisy fighting kids in the back seat and fiddling with the air conditioner controls enough to take my eyes off the road and not realize until too late that the car far out in front of me was in fact stopped.I total'ed the car when I hit it , and thankfully we were all ok.I might have had a different result if there was a law preventing fiddling with dashboard controls.Not that I like the concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several years ago I was accelerating away from a toll booth, trying to ignore noisy fighting kids in the back seat and fiddling with the air conditioner controls enough to take my eyes off the road and not realize until too late that the car far out in front of me was in fact stopped.I total'ed the car when I hit it, and thankfully we were all ok.I might have had a different result if there was a law preventing fiddling with dashboard controls.Not that I like the concept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895925</id>
	<title>Crock!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256739120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you can't "navigate with your GPS", well that'll please the TomTom/Garman, et al! I think I'll go back to Honda and ask for a $3000 refund on my fitted  GPS unit!</p><p>What a crock! Can't take hands of the wheel? What about changing gear? Pulling on the handbrake?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you ca n't " navigate with your GPS " , well that 'll please the TomTom/Garman , et al !
I think I 'll go back to Honda and ask for a $ 3000 refund on my fitted GPS unit ! What a crock !
Ca n't take hands of the wheel ?
What about changing gear ?
Pulling on the handbrake ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you can't "navigate with your GPS", well that'll please the TomTom/Garman, et al!
I think I'll go back to Honda and ask for a $3000 refund on my fitted  GPS unit!What a crock!
Can't take hands of the wheel?
What about changing gear?
Pulling on the handbrake?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895173</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256733600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Here's how I reason. Regardless if I can or cannot drive perfectly well while drinking coffee with one hand, for all I know this could be completely fatal in your case. And if keeping the right to drink my morning coffee while driving potentially means losing my legs or even my life simply because you also had those rights, then it's a very, very, very small price to pay.</i></p><p>The way I see it it's a slippery slope. If you aren't capable of driving with the minor distraction of holding a drink in your hand, you're probably not safe to drive. We could stop all accidents right now if we banned motorised transportation. Then your precious legs would be safe, but it's not such a small price to pay.</p><p>People need to get the fuck over the fact that life isn't going to be accident free. The only way to never have accidents is to never do anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's how I reason .
Regardless if I can or can not drive perfectly well while drinking coffee with one hand , for all I know this could be completely fatal in your case .
And if keeping the right to drink my morning coffee while driving potentially means losing my legs or even my life simply because you also had those rights , then it 's a very , very , very small price to pay.The way I see it it 's a slippery slope .
If you are n't capable of driving with the minor distraction of holding a drink in your hand , you 're probably not safe to drive .
We could stop all accidents right now if we banned motorised transportation .
Then your precious legs would be safe , but it 's not such a small price to pay.People need to get the fuck over the fact that life is n't going to be accident free .
The only way to never have accidents is to never do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's how I reason.
Regardless if I can or cannot drive perfectly well while drinking coffee with one hand, for all I know this could be completely fatal in your case.
And if keeping the right to drink my morning coffee while driving potentially means losing my legs or even my life simply because you also had those rights, then it's a very, very, very small price to pay.The way I see it it's a slippery slope.
If you aren't capable of driving with the minor distraction of holding a drink in your hand, you're probably not safe to drive.
We could stop all accidents right now if we banned motorised transportation.
Then your precious legs would be safe, but it's not such a small price to pay.People need to get the fuck over the fact that life isn't going to be accident free.
The only way to never have accidents is to never do anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29917237</id>
	<title>9 and 3</title>
	<author>darco6</author>
	<datestamp>1256813820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I need more buttons on my steering wheel</htmltext>
<tokenext>I need more buttons on my steering wheel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I need more buttons on my steering wheel</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29900175</id>
	<title>Radios in Manitoba</title>
	<author>ehud42</author>
	<datestamp>1256756460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>meh. Pushed far enough, <a href="http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/h060e.php#44(2)" title="gov.mb.ca">radios have been illegal in Manitoba</a> [gov.mb.ca] for years....</htmltext>
<tokenext>meh .
Pushed far enough , radios have been illegal in Manitoba [ gov.mb.ca ] for years... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>meh.
Pushed far enough, radios have been illegal in Manitoba [gov.mb.ca] for years....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897029</id>
	<title>Re:Terrible Summary</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1256743620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What would be allowed while driving<br>* Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth device</p></div><p>Which of course makes this the stupidest law EVER, since having a conversation (which requires concentration) with someone NOT EVEN IN THE CAR (so they don't know to shut up for a second when everyone in front of you jams on their brakes all of a sudden) is the WORST DISTRACTION OF ALL.</p><p>Why can I do that, but not glance at my iPhone's "Maps" app while at a light or send a text to someone that I'll be late while sitting at a COMPLETE FUCKING STOP on a traffic-jammed freeway?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would be allowed while driving * Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth deviceWhich of course makes this the stupidest law EVER , since having a conversation ( which requires concentration ) with someone NOT EVEN IN THE CAR ( so they do n't know to shut up for a second when everyone in front of you jams on their brakes all of a sudden ) is the WORST DISTRACTION OF ALL.Why can I do that , but not glance at my iPhone 's " Maps " app while at a light or send a text to someone that I 'll be late while sitting at a COMPLETE FUCKING STOP on a traffic-jammed freeway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would be allowed while driving* Hands-free wireless communications devices with an earpiece or Bluetooth deviceWhich of course makes this the stupidest law EVER, since having a conversation (which requires concentration) with someone NOT EVEN IN THE CAR (so they don't know to shut up for a second when everyone in front of you jams on their brakes all of a sudden) is the WORST DISTRACTION OF ALL.Why can I do that, but not glance at my iPhone's "Maps" app while at a light or send a text to someone that I'll be late while sitting at a COMPLETE FUCKING STOP on a traffic-jammed freeway?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29905591</id>
	<title>I hope it includes applying makeup</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1256742600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion, much worse than phone users are women that apply makeup while driving, especially when they move the rearview mirror to use it to look at themselves, meaning they now have no situational awareness.<br>I've even seen women use an eyelash brush as they are driving. One pothole could easily put the brush in her eye, and you can bet she won't stay in her lane if that happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion , much worse than phone users are women that apply makeup while driving , especially when they move the rearview mirror to use it to look at themselves , meaning they now have no situational awareness.I 've even seen women use an eyelash brush as they are driving .
One pothole could easily put the brush in her eye , and you can bet she wo n't stay in her lane if that happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion, much worse than phone users are women that apply makeup while driving, especially when they move the rearview mirror to use it to look at themselves, meaning they now have no situational awareness.I've even seen women use an eyelash brush as they are driving.
One pothole could easily put the brush in her eye, and you can bet she won't stay in her lane if that happens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895515</id>
	<title>Re:Terrible Summary</title>
	<author>int69h</author>
	<datestamp>1256736360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stupid law.  I would wager that more accidents are caused from people paying attention to the conversation on their phones than from the physical act of holding the phone.  Allowing hands-free operation does very little to solve the root of the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid law .
I would wager that more accidents are caused from people paying attention to the conversation on their phones than from the physical act of holding the phone .
Allowing hands-free operation does very little to solve the root of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid law.
I would wager that more accidents are caused from people paying attention to the conversation on their phones than from the physical act of holding the phone.
Allowing hands-free operation does very little to solve the root of the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894637</id>
	<title>Steering Wheel Controls</title>
	<author>McHenry Boatride</author>
	<datestamp>1256728080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My car has simple controls on the steering wheel to control the tuning and volume of the radio/CD player. I would have thought it possible to similarly mount simple A/C contols. Trying to retune the radio, or even just adjust the volume, can be an uneccessary distraction if you have to look away from the road at the controls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My car has simple controls on the steering wheel to control the tuning and volume of the radio/CD player .
I would have thought it possible to similarly mount simple A/C contols .
Trying to retune the radio , or even just adjust the volume , can be an uneccessary distraction if you have to look away from the road at the controls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My car has simple controls on the steering wheel to control the tuning and volume of the radio/CD player.
I would have thought it possible to similarly mount simple A/C contols.
Trying to retune the radio, or even just adjust the volume, can be an uneccessary distraction if you have to look away from the road at the controls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896753</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>Thuktun</author>
	<datestamp>1256742600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(police car video camera) + (footage of crappy driving behavior) = (hard to dispute ticket)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( police car video camera ) + ( footage of crappy driving behavior ) = ( hard to dispute ticket )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(police car video camera) + (footage of crappy driving behavior) = (hard to dispute ticket)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894963</id>
	<title>Re:And In Related News:</title>
	<author>srussia</author>
	<datestamp>1256731740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heck, I used to ROLL cigarettes while driving (steering with my knee), with no adverse consequences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , I used to ROLL cigarettes while driving ( steering with my knee ) , with no adverse consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, I used to ROLL cigarettes while driving (steering with my knee), with no adverse consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895709</id>
	<title>Re:Get off your high horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>First of all there is no "right to travel."</i></p><p>Actually, I think John Locke would disagree. And as for the second part, you can never eliminate risk, true, but you can minimize it to the extent that you render it statistically impossible, although I suspect the only way would be to enact absolutely draconian laws. It's a tautology, but the surest way to eliminate automobile accidents is to eliminate automobiles. There are, I would guess, very few if any car accidents in North Korea, because only high-level government officials are allowed to own cars. And even if I run really fast into someone else who's running really fast in the opposite direction we might just knock ourselves unconscious at the most.</p><p>But as for the rest of your post, I agree entirely. Dangerous driving is already covered by existing laws in every state in the US, I believe. Unlike a previous poster, I am more than capable of lighting a cigarette while keeping my eyes on the road, a hand on the wheel, and maintaining alert control of the vehicle. I do it more often than I should, in fact. On the other hand, people get into accidents all the time because they were fiddling with their air conditioning. Since the goal isn't to keep people from smoking in cars but to keep them from not paying attention to driving, legislating against individual behaviors isn't going to have the effect you want.</p><p>I would suggest that driving while distracted is the same as talking during a movie. It's illegal, it's annoying, but there will always be people who are more interested in doing whatever they want to do, be it talking through a movie or texting and applying makeup while driving, than not ruining someone else's day. The solution isn't to try to legislate behavior but to change the culture that allows such behavior. That's why I'll be raising kids who would rather burn alive than talk during a movie, and who will pull the car over before they answer a cellphone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all there is no " right to travel .
" Actually , I think John Locke would disagree .
And as for the second part , you can never eliminate risk , true , but you can minimize it to the extent that you render it statistically impossible , although I suspect the only way would be to enact absolutely draconian laws .
It 's a tautology , but the surest way to eliminate automobile accidents is to eliminate automobiles .
There are , I would guess , very few if any car accidents in North Korea , because only high-level government officials are allowed to own cars .
And even if I run really fast into someone else who 's running really fast in the opposite direction we might just knock ourselves unconscious at the most.But as for the rest of your post , I agree entirely .
Dangerous driving is already covered by existing laws in every state in the US , I believe .
Unlike a previous poster , I am more than capable of lighting a cigarette while keeping my eyes on the road , a hand on the wheel , and maintaining alert control of the vehicle .
I do it more often than I should , in fact .
On the other hand , people get into accidents all the time because they were fiddling with their air conditioning .
Since the goal is n't to keep people from smoking in cars but to keep them from not paying attention to driving , legislating against individual behaviors is n't going to have the effect you want.I would suggest that driving while distracted is the same as talking during a movie .
It 's illegal , it 's annoying , but there will always be people who are more interested in doing whatever they want to do , be it talking through a movie or texting and applying makeup while driving , than not ruining someone else 's day .
The solution is n't to try to legislate behavior but to change the culture that allows such behavior .
That 's why I 'll be raising kids who would rather burn alive than talk during a movie , and who will pull the car over before they answer a cellphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all there is no "right to travel.
"Actually, I think John Locke would disagree.
And as for the second part, you can never eliminate risk, true, but you can minimize it to the extent that you render it statistically impossible, although I suspect the only way would be to enact absolutely draconian laws.
It's a tautology, but the surest way to eliminate automobile accidents is to eliminate automobiles.
There are, I would guess, very few if any car accidents in North Korea, because only high-level government officials are allowed to own cars.
And even if I run really fast into someone else who's running really fast in the opposite direction we might just knock ourselves unconscious at the most.But as for the rest of your post, I agree entirely.
Dangerous driving is already covered by existing laws in every state in the US, I believe.
Unlike a previous poster, I am more than capable of lighting a cigarette while keeping my eyes on the road, a hand on the wheel, and maintaining alert control of the vehicle.
I do it more often than I should, in fact.
On the other hand, people get into accidents all the time because they were fiddling with their air conditioning.
Since the goal isn't to keep people from smoking in cars but to keep them from not paying attention to driving, legislating against individual behaviors isn't going to have the effect you want.I would suggest that driving while distracted is the same as talking during a movie.
It's illegal, it's annoying, but there will always be people who are more interested in doing whatever they want to do, be it talking through a movie or texting and applying makeup while driving, than not ruining someone else's day.
The solution isn't to try to legislate behavior but to change the culture that allows such behavior.
That's why I'll be raising kids who would rather burn alive than talk during a movie, and who will pull the car over before they answer a cellphone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29912249</id>
	<title>'hands on wheel'=distracting!</title>
	<author>missioncreep</author>
	<datestamp>1256838060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i could see the need to focus so closely on keeping both hands on the wheel at all times might cause accidents. is it a $500 fine to scratch your nose? how well does one drive with an itchy nose...?

it is simply baffling that these things need to be explicitly outlawed. a *law* against texting while driving? so now do we have to have a law against cooking dinner behind the wheel; reading books; bathing; feeding one's pet elephant...  how stupid *are* people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i could see the need to focus so closely on keeping both hands on the wheel at all times might cause accidents .
is it a $ 500 fine to scratch your nose ?
how well does one drive with an itchy nose... ?
it is simply baffling that these things need to be explicitly outlawed .
a * law * against texting while driving ?
so now do we have to have a law against cooking dinner behind the wheel ; reading books ; bathing ; feeding one 's pet elephant... how stupid * are * people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i could see the need to focus so closely on keeping both hands on the wheel at all times might cause accidents.
is it a $500 fine to scratch your nose?
how well does one drive with an itchy nose...?
it is simply baffling that these things need to be explicitly outlawed.
a *law* against texting while driving?
so now do we have to have a law against cooking dinner behind the wheel; reading books; bathing; feeding one's pet elephant...  how stupid *are* people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898799</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well, you see, most cars coming out nowadays have something called an 'automatic transmission'.</p></div></blockquote><p>Most automatics have worse gas mileage and all of them allow drivers to be more disengaged from the act of driving.  With the exception of handicapped people, stick shifts should either be mandatory or automatics should have a $5k luxury tax to discourage people from driving without paying attention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you see , most cars coming out nowadays have something called an 'automatic transmission'.Most automatics have worse gas mileage and all of them allow drivers to be more disengaged from the act of driving .
With the exception of handicapped people , stick shifts should either be mandatory or automatics should have a $ 5k luxury tax to discourage people from driving without paying attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you see, most cars coming out nowadays have something called an 'automatic transmission'.Most automatics have worse gas mileage and all of them allow drivers to be more disengaged from the act of driving.
With the exception of handicapped people, stick shifts should either be mandatory or automatics should have a $5k luxury tax to discourage people from driving without paying attention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894647</id>
	<title>And In Related News:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A Canadian truck driver has been fined for <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE59855D20091009" title="reuters.com">smoking in his own truck.</a> [reuters.com]  His truck is a "workplace" you see, and you're not allowed to smoke at work.
<br> <br>
Beware!  Definitions have consequences!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Canadian truck driver has been fined for smoking in his own truck .
[ reuters.com ] His truck is a " workplace " you see , and you 're not allowed to smoke at work .
Beware ! Definitions have consequences !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Canadian truck driver has been fined for smoking in his own truck.
[reuters.com]  His truck is a "workplace" you see, and you're not allowed to smoke at work.
Beware!  Definitions have consequences!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895083</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256732820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stats show otherwise. It isn't your eye focus that is the problem. The conversation itself is what kills people. They just become blind and inattentive. Often they could be looking directly at an incoming vehicle and not have it register.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stats show otherwise .
It is n't your eye focus that is the problem .
The conversation itself is what kills people .
They just become blind and inattentive .
Often they could be looking directly at an incoming vehicle and not have it register .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stats show otherwise.
It isn't your eye focus that is the problem.
The conversation itself is what kills people.
They just become blind and inattentive.
Often they could be looking directly at an incoming vehicle and not have it register.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897873</id>
	<title>not cost effective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do the police have anything better to do I wonder?
<br>
Is this how we want law enforcement to spend their energy? Going on patrol, filling out paperwork, having court dates, etc. all because someone talked on their phone while driving.
<br>
Enforcing laws costs money, and the revenues generated from ticketing people does not offset that, it simply transfers the cost from the general tax payer to the ticketed folks.
<br>
How many accidents would this law have to prevent in order to break even?  How many cell phone blitzes would the police have to go on before people were scared enough to make sure they abide by this new law?  I guess I should expect my insurance premiums to go down now that world is a safer place right ?
<br>
I wish parliament could spend time on something more useful. Something that is clearly helpful to society. I do not think it is that hard to find real problems to solve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the police have anything better to do I wonder ?
Is this how we want law enforcement to spend their energy ?
Going on patrol , filling out paperwork , having court dates , etc .
all because someone talked on their phone while driving .
Enforcing laws costs money , and the revenues generated from ticketing people does not offset that , it simply transfers the cost from the general tax payer to the ticketed folks .
How many accidents would this law have to prevent in order to break even ?
How many cell phone blitzes would the police have to go on before people were scared enough to make sure they abide by this new law ?
I guess I should expect my insurance premiums to go down now that world is a safer place right ?
I wish parliament could spend time on something more useful .
Something that is clearly helpful to society .
I do not think it is that hard to find real problems to solve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the police have anything better to do I wonder?
Is this how we want law enforcement to spend their energy?
Going on patrol, filling out paperwork, having court dates, etc.
all because someone talked on their phone while driving.
Enforcing laws costs money, and the revenues generated from ticketing people does not offset that, it simply transfers the cost from the general tax payer to the ticketed folks.
How many accidents would this law have to prevent in order to break even?
How many cell phone blitzes would the police have to go on before people were scared enough to make sure they abide by this new law?
I guess I should expect my insurance premiums to go down now that world is a safer place right ?
I wish parliament could spend time on something more useful.
Something that is clearly helpful to society.
I do not think it is that hard to find real problems to solve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894987</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>AndGodSed</author>
	<datestamp>1256731920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because "Driving without care or attention" has two possible problems.</p><p>1 - It is easier for a cop to say "I am fining you because you are talking on your cell while driving" as opposed to "I am fining you for driving without care or attention because you are talking on your cellphone while driving" and to make the point without wasting both parties time.</p><p>2 - "Driving without care or attention" leaves too much room for subjective argumentation - "But I can drive just as well while on the cell as when I am not!" and in (1) above it can become really problematic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because " Driving without care or attention " has two possible problems.1 - It is easier for a cop to say " I am fining you because you are talking on your cell while driving " as opposed to " I am fining you for driving without care or attention because you are talking on your cellphone while driving " and to make the point without wasting both parties time.2 - " Driving without care or attention " leaves too much room for subjective argumentation - " But I can drive just as well while on the cell as when I am not !
" and in ( 1 ) above it can become really problematic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because "Driving without care or attention" has two possible problems.1 - It is easier for a cop to say "I am fining you because you are talking on your cell while driving" as opposed to "I am fining you for driving without care or attention because you are talking on your cellphone while driving" and to make the point without wasting both parties time.2 - "Driving without care or attention" leaves too much room for subjective argumentation - "But I can drive just as well while on the cell as when I am not!
" and in (1) above it can become really problematic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896321</id>
	<title>increased operator load</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1256740860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Ok, so now, to change radio stations, besides driving you also have to watch out for police cars.  Yeah, that increases safety.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so now , to change radio stations , besides driving you also have to watch out for police cars .
Yeah , that increases safety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Ok, so now, to change radio stations, besides driving you also have to watch out for police cars.
Yeah, that increases safety.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897749</id>
	<title>What about shifting ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256746500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you have a manual transmission?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you have a manual transmission ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you have a manual transmission?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896699</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>eddy the lip</author>
	<datestamp>1256742300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, I moved to Ontario from Alberta this summer, in part because Alberta (much as I love that part of the country) is run like a frat house, and getting increasingly more screwed up.</p><p>As for the cell phone law, I'm glad to see it in. It may keep one of my awesome-driver friends out of a nasty accident. He was incapable of not using his cell phone while driving, only, I'm sure, because of pride in his driving skills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I moved to Ontario from Alberta this summer , in part because Alberta ( much as I love that part of the country ) is run like a frat house , and getting increasingly more screwed up.As for the cell phone law , I 'm glad to see it in .
It may keep one of my awesome-driver friends out of a nasty accident .
He was incapable of not using his cell phone while driving , only , I 'm sure , because of pride in his driving skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, I moved to Ontario from Alberta this summer, in part because Alberta (much as I love that part of the country) is run like a frat house, and getting increasingly more screwed up.As for the cell phone law, I'm glad to see it in.
It may keep one of my awesome-driver friends out of a nasty accident.
He was incapable of not using his cell phone while driving, only, I'm sure, because of pride in his driving skills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896015</id>
	<title>A word from the Devil's advocate</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1256739420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody here is of course going to be all-out against this legislation, and probably quoting diverse bills of rights in the process. Many of the objections will be valid, at least to some degree, but these considerations would not be complete if one doesn't at least try to genuinely understand the other side of the argument.</p><p>There is no doubt that being distracted while driving is probably a major cause of accidents, that are sometimes serious. There is also little doubt that mobile devices with complex interfaces constitute a growing threat to people's concentration while driving. It seems to me, that there is a good case for doing something about it now - the question is what can one practically do? And that little word, "practically", is what makes is so difficult; it would be easy if they could simply ban the production and possession of any mobile device or something like that.</p><p>The only tool legislators have, really, is legislation, so they have to introduce a law. A law is useless if it can't be enforced, so it has to be simple enough for the average citizen to understand and for the police to enforce, and it mustn't generate huge amounts of court cases. So it seems that the law, as it has been introduced, is not really such a hare-brained scheme as some would argue; it isn't perfect and it won't be popular, but it isn't fair to dismiss it as idiotic either.</p><p>As far as I can see, it isn't actually unreasonable to make some rules for how people should behave when they are in control of a car; all you have to do to follow this one is to not use mobile devices that require you to take your attention away from driving. Can it really be true that people who are technologically minded, such as the readers of slashdot, can't think of ways to overcome this challenge?</p><p>Some phones already have some sort of speech control; it should be simple to make a Bluetooth device that could be mounted on the steering wheel and would allow yoy some control over mobile devices - it probably already exists. People should stop whining over how unfair the world is. If you believe that technological innovation is somehow going to save us from the impending doom of climate change, biosphere breakdown and resource shortage, finding a better way of interacting with a mobile or gps should be a small challenge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody here is of course going to be all-out against this legislation , and probably quoting diverse bills of rights in the process .
Many of the objections will be valid , at least to some degree , but these considerations would not be complete if one does n't at least try to genuinely understand the other side of the argument.There is no doubt that being distracted while driving is probably a major cause of accidents , that are sometimes serious .
There is also little doubt that mobile devices with complex interfaces constitute a growing threat to people 's concentration while driving .
It seems to me , that there is a good case for doing something about it now - the question is what can one practically do ?
And that little word , " practically " , is what makes is so difficult ; it would be easy if they could simply ban the production and possession of any mobile device or something like that.The only tool legislators have , really , is legislation , so they have to introduce a law .
A law is useless if it ca n't be enforced , so it has to be simple enough for the average citizen to understand and for the police to enforce , and it must n't generate huge amounts of court cases .
So it seems that the law , as it has been introduced , is not really such a hare-brained scheme as some would argue ; it is n't perfect and it wo n't be popular , but it is n't fair to dismiss it as idiotic either.As far as I can see , it is n't actually unreasonable to make some rules for how people should behave when they are in control of a car ; all you have to do to follow this one is to not use mobile devices that require you to take your attention away from driving .
Can it really be true that people who are technologically minded , such as the readers of slashdot , ca n't think of ways to overcome this challenge ? Some phones already have some sort of speech control ; it should be simple to make a Bluetooth device that could be mounted on the steering wheel and would allow yoy some control over mobile devices - it probably already exists .
People should stop whining over how unfair the world is .
If you believe that technological innovation is somehow going to save us from the impending doom of climate change , biosphere breakdown and resource shortage , finding a better way of interacting with a mobile or gps should be a small challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody here is of course going to be all-out against this legislation, and probably quoting diverse bills of rights in the process.
Many of the objections will be valid, at least to some degree, but these considerations would not be complete if one doesn't at least try to genuinely understand the other side of the argument.There is no doubt that being distracted while driving is probably a major cause of accidents, that are sometimes serious.
There is also little doubt that mobile devices with complex interfaces constitute a growing threat to people's concentration while driving.
It seems to me, that there is a good case for doing something about it now - the question is what can one practically do?
And that little word, "practically", is what makes is so difficult; it would be easy if they could simply ban the production and possession of any mobile device or something like that.The only tool legislators have, really, is legislation, so they have to introduce a law.
A law is useless if it can't be enforced, so it has to be simple enough for the average citizen to understand and for the police to enforce, and it mustn't generate huge amounts of court cases.
So it seems that the law, as it has been introduced, is not really such a hare-brained scheme as some would argue; it isn't perfect and it won't be popular, but it isn't fair to dismiss it as idiotic either.As far as I can see, it isn't actually unreasonable to make some rules for how people should behave when they are in control of a car; all you have to do to follow this one is to not use mobile devices that require you to take your attention away from driving.
Can it really be true that people who are technologically minded, such as the readers of slashdot, can't think of ways to overcome this challenge?Some phones already have some sort of speech control; it should be simple to make a Bluetooth device that could be mounted on the steering wheel and would allow yoy some control over mobile devices - it probably already exists.
People should stop whining over how unfair the world is.
If you believe that technological innovation is somehow going to save us from the impending doom of climate change, biosphere breakdown and resource shortage, finding a better way of interacting with a mobile or gps should be a small challenge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896231</id>
	<title>Re:Get off your high horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>First of all there is no "right to travel". </i></p><p>In Canada there is. <a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l\_I" title="justice.gc.ca" rel="nofollow">Section 6. (1)</a> [justice.gc.ca] of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subtitled "Mobility of citizens" says:</p><p><b>Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.</b></p><p>You do have the right to travel, but there is no right to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. That is a privilege granted by law.</p><p>And as a result of Section 6, the Canadian government was recently obliged by the courts to issue a passport to a Canadian citizen who happened to be a known terrorist (with a history of giving his passport to other terrorists), because without a passport he was unable to exercise his right to enter &amp; leave Canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all there is no " right to travel " .
In Canada there is .
Section 6 .
( 1 ) [ justice.gc.ca ] of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , subtitled " Mobility of citizens " says : Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter , remain in and leave Canada.You do have the right to travel , but there is no right to operate a motor vehicle on a public road .
That is a privilege granted by law.And as a result of Section 6 , the Canadian government was recently obliged by the courts to issue a passport to a Canadian citizen who happened to be a known terrorist ( with a history of giving his passport to other terrorists ) , because without a passport he was unable to exercise his right to enter &amp; leave Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all there is no "right to travel".
In Canada there is.
Section 6.
(1) [justice.gc.ca] of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subtitled "Mobility of citizens" says:Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.You do have the right to travel, but there is no right to operate a motor vehicle on a public road.
That is a privilege granted by law.And as a result of Section 6, the Canadian government was recently obliged by the courts to issue a passport to a Canadian citizen who happened to be a known terrorist (with a history of giving his passport to other terrorists), because without a passport he was unable to exercise his right to enter &amp; leave Canada.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894747</id>
	<title>Automatic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256729220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't the vast majority of cars in the US automatic anyway (apposed the the vast majority of cars in Europe being manual)? Surely that means that Americans have an extra free hand, for GPSs, Blackberries and Big Macs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't the vast majority of cars in the US automatic anyway ( apposed the the vast majority of cars in Europe being manual ) ?
Surely that means that Americans have an extra free hand , for GPSs , Blackberries and Big Macs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't the vast majority of cars in the US automatic anyway (apposed the the vast majority of cars in Europe being manual)?
Surely that means that Americans have an extra free hand, for GPSs, Blackberries and Big Macs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896685</id>
	<title>Re:Get off your high horse</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1256742240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Everyone has a right to travel. No one has the right to endanger others.</i> </p></div><p>I generally agree with your post, and normally I don't like picking nits, but, in Canada, mobility rights are enshrined in the Constitution.</p><p>6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.<br>(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right<br>(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and<br>(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.</p><p>There are some qualifications to those rights that allow provinces to make laws that require a person to be resident in a province before they can collect social support, and there's protection for affirmative action laws, but otherwise, a Canadian is free to go where she wishes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone has a right to travel .
No one has the right to endanger others .
I generally agree with your post , and normally I do n't like picking nits , but , in Canada , mobility rights are enshrined in the Constitution.6 .
( 1 ) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter , remain in and leave Canada .
( 2 ) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right ( a ) to move to and take up residence in any province ; and ( b ) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.There are some qualifications to those rights that allow provinces to make laws that require a person to be resident in a province before they can collect social support , and there 's protection for affirmative action laws , but otherwise , a Canadian is free to go where she wishes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Everyone has a right to travel.
No one has the right to endanger others.
I generally agree with your post, and normally I don't like picking nits, but, in Canada, mobility rights are enshrined in the Constitution.6.
(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.There are some qualifications to those rights that allow provinces to make laws that require a person to be resident in a province before they can collect social support, and there's protection for affirmative action laws, but otherwise, a Canadian is free to go where she wishes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895329</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1256734740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course they do -- this is all just a show to garner votes. We see the same thing with gun control laws every time some nutjob goes into a public place. Politicians were screaming about instituting more gun control after Columbine, completely ignoring the myriad of other gun laws that these kids had unsurprisingly already ignored and circumvented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they do -- this is all just a show to garner votes .
We see the same thing with gun control laws every time some nutjob goes into a public place .
Politicians were screaming about instituting more gun control after Columbine , completely ignoring the myriad of other gun laws that these kids had unsurprisingly already ignored and circumvented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they do -- this is all just a show to garner votes.
We see the same thing with gun control laws every time some nutjob goes into a public place.
Politicians were screaming about instituting more gun control after Columbine, completely ignoring the myriad of other gun laws that these kids had unsurprisingly already ignored and circumvented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29906507</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>david duncan scott</author>
	<datestamp>1256750040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Farding?" As in "putting on cosmetics?"
<p>Was this "years ago" like sometime before the American Revolution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Farding ?
" As in " putting on cosmetics ?
" Was this " years ago " like sometime before the American Revolution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Farding?
" As in "putting on cosmetics?
"
Was this "years ago" like sometime before the American Revolution?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895693</id>
	<title>Re:Correct. The summary should be tagged "troll"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and when you're younger than 40 you realize that people older than you are slowpokes who slow down for everything and only care for the safety of pedestrians when the peds in question are their own children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and when you 're younger than 40 you realize that people older than you are slowpokes who slow down for everything and only care for the safety of pedestrians when the peds in question are their own children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and when you're younger than 40 you realize that people older than you are slowpokes who slow down for everything and only care for the safety of pedestrians when the peds in question are their own children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896025</id>
	<title>Way behind Germany</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256739480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Germany you don't eat, drink, talk on the phone, or even hang in the left lane. This has been this way for years. So stop whining and drive!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Germany you do n't eat , drink , talk on the phone , or even hang in the left lane .
This has been this way for years .
So stop whining and drive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Germany you don't eat, drink, talk on the phone, or even hang in the left lane.
This has been this way for years.
So stop whining and drive!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237</id>
	<title>Get off your high horse</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256734020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So no, this law does not go too far, in fact it does not go far enough. It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.</i></p><p>Anyone who claims they've never driven while distracted is a complete and utter moron. Mod it flamebait, I don't give a fuck but you sir are a fuckwit. It'd be more effective to ban babies from being in the car since an infant in a car seat who has just vomited and is about to choke to death is a far greater distraction than changing the fucking radio station.</p><p>I'm almost surprised you haven't suggested that cars need to be banned period.</p><p>The correct solution by the way is to teach people how to cope with distractions. AND TEST the driver for being able to cope with distractions. Life is full of them and pretending they don't exist is far more culpable than changing a radio station.</p><p><i>Everyone has a right to travel. No one has the right to endanger others.</i></p><p>First of all there is no "right to travel". Secondly the two are not compatible. There is a risk to yourself and others around you when you travel. It can be minimised NOT eliminated.</p><p><i>Those that do endanger others need to be held accountable for their actions</i></p><p>You mean like existing dangerous driving laws?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So no , this law does not go too far , in fact it does not go far enough .
It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.Anyone who claims they 've never driven while distracted is a complete and utter moron .
Mod it flamebait , I do n't give a fuck but you sir are a fuckwit .
It 'd be more effective to ban babies from being in the car since an infant in a car seat who has just vomited and is about to choke to death is a far greater distraction than changing the fucking radio station.I 'm almost surprised you have n't suggested that cars need to be banned period.The correct solution by the way is to teach people how to cope with distractions .
AND TEST the driver for being able to cope with distractions .
Life is full of them and pretending they do n't exist is far more culpable than changing a radio station.Everyone has a right to travel .
No one has the right to endanger others.First of all there is no " right to travel " .
Secondly the two are not compatible .
There is a risk to yourself and others around you when you travel .
It can be minimised NOT eliminated.Those that do endanger others need to be held accountable for their actionsYou mean like existing dangerous driving laws ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So no, this law does not go too far, in fact it does not go far enough.
It should mandate that anyone found driving while distracted be charged with reckless endangerment of human life.Anyone who claims they've never driven while distracted is a complete and utter moron.
Mod it flamebait, I don't give a fuck but you sir are a fuckwit.
It'd be more effective to ban babies from being in the car since an infant in a car seat who has just vomited and is about to choke to death is a far greater distraction than changing the fucking radio station.I'm almost surprised you haven't suggested that cars need to be banned period.The correct solution by the way is to teach people how to cope with distractions.
AND TEST the driver for being able to cope with distractions.
Life is full of them and pretending they don't exist is far more culpable than changing a radio station.Everyone has a right to travel.
No one has the right to endanger others.First of all there is no "right to travel".
Secondly the two are not compatible.
There is a risk to yourself and others around you when you travel.
It can be minimised NOT eliminated.Those that do endanger others need to be held accountable for their actionsYou mean like existing dangerous driving laws?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895701</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1256737800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Take it to a judge then. The roadside is not the place for these sorts of arguments, in much the same way it isn't the place to argue whether you were driving 35 in a 30 zone or not</i></p><p>I agree, but lets be honest here.  You'll be taking it to an administrative type person, not a judge, because its a civil offense, and you're not in a court, you're in an "admininstrative hearing."  In other words, a kangaroo system designed to simply say "yes, you are guilty, and no, we don't want to hear anything you have to say."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take it to a judge then .
The roadside is not the place for these sorts of arguments , in much the same way it is n't the place to argue whether you were driving 35 in a 30 zone or notI agree , but lets be honest here .
You 'll be taking it to an administrative type person , not a judge , because its a civil offense , and you 're not in a court , you 're in an " admininstrative hearing .
" In other words , a kangaroo system designed to simply say " yes , you are guilty , and no , we do n't want to hear anything you have to say .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take it to a judge then.
The roadside is not the place for these sorts of arguments, in much the same way it isn't the place to argue whether you were driving 35 in a 30 zone or notI agree, but lets be honest here.
You'll be taking it to an administrative type person, not a judge, because its a civil offense, and you're not in a court, you're in an "admininstrative hearing.
"  In other words, a kangaroo system designed to simply say "yes, you are guilty, and no, we don't want to hear anything you have to say.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29904071</id>
	<title>Re:Get off your high horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256732460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to say first off, that I have a tendency to support this kind of legislation.  Part of it is that I have close calls at least three times a week from someone yacking on their cell phone, or doing makeup, or whatever, instead of driving.  The worst I saw was some guy READING while he was driving.  So I guess it just hits close to home for a problem I see quite a lot.  (My brother and I go round and round on this issue all of the time.)</p><p>That said, I have to agree on legislating the cause and not just specific behaviour.  A previous poster mentioned gun control laws.  Great example.  Let's outlaw guns so everyone bludgeons each other with baseball bats instead.</p><p>Another case in point was unrelated, but same concept.  I like to back into parking spaces.  When I moved into an apartment a couple of years ago, I discovered that it was against the rules to back in.  What?!?</p><p>Come to find out, it was because people would back in and let the backs of their cars hang over the sidewalk, obstructing passage.  The apartment complex backpedalled a bit when I pointed out the behaviour:  I was backed in, with my back bumper even with the curb;  two spaces down, someone in one of those battleship-sized cars was pulled in -- with the FRONT end of his car COMPLETELY blocking the sidewalk.</p><p>It's a little off-topic, but the concept is the same.  Instead of making it against the rules to talk on your cellphone while you drive, we need to find a root behaviour that's common to all of these behaviours.  In the case of the backing-in rule, they should have made it against the rules to let your bumper obstruct the sidewalk.  That was the lowest common denominator.  So, now, we have our question:  What is the lowest common denominator in the cell-phones-while-driving law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to say first off , that I have a tendency to support this kind of legislation .
Part of it is that I have close calls at least three times a week from someone yacking on their cell phone , or doing makeup , or whatever , instead of driving .
The worst I saw was some guy READING while he was driving .
So I guess it just hits close to home for a problem I see quite a lot .
( My brother and I go round and round on this issue all of the time .
) That said , I have to agree on legislating the cause and not just specific behaviour .
A previous poster mentioned gun control laws .
Great example .
Let 's outlaw guns so everyone bludgeons each other with baseball bats instead.Another case in point was unrelated , but same concept .
I like to back into parking spaces .
When I moved into an apartment a couple of years ago , I discovered that it was against the rules to back in .
What ? ! ? Come to find out , it was because people would back in and let the backs of their cars hang over the sidewalk , obstructing passage .
The apartment complex backpedalled a bit when I pointed out the behaviour : I was backed in , with my back bumper even with the curb ; two spaces down , someone in one of those battleship-sized cars was pulled in -- with the FRONT end of his car COMPLETELY blocking the sidewalk.It 's a little off-topic , but the concept is the same .
Instead of making it against the rules to talk on your cellphone while you drive , we need to find a root behaviour that 's common to all of these behaviours .
In the case of the backing-in rule , they should have made it against the rules to let your bumper obstruct the sidewalk .
That was the lowest common denominator .
So , now , we have our question : What is the lowest common denominator in the cell-phones-while-driving law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to say first off, that I have a tendency to support this kind of legislation.
Part of it is that I have close calls at least three times a week from someone yacking on their cell phone, or doing makeup, or whatever, instead of driving.
The worst I saw was some guy READING while he was driving.
So I guess it just hits close to home for a problem I see quite a lot.
(My brother and I go round and round on this issue all of the time.
)That said, I have to agree on legislating the cause and not just specific behaviour.
A previous poster mentioned gun control laws.
Great example.
Let's outlaw guns so everyone bludgeons each other with baseball bats instead.Another case in point was unrelated, but same concept.
I like to back into parking spaces.
When I moved into an apartment a couple of years ago, I discovered that it was against the rules to back in.
What?!?Come to find out, it was because people would back in and let the backs of their cars hang over the sidewalk, obstructing passage.
The apartment complex backpedalled a bit when I pointed out the behaviour:  I was backed in, with my back bumper even with the curb;  two spaces down, someone in one of those battleship-sized cars was pulled in -- with the FRONT end of his car COMPLETELY blocking the sidewalk.It's a little off-topic, but the concept is the same.
Instead of making it against the rules to talk on your cellphone while you drive, we need to find a root behaviour that's common to all of these behaviours.
In the case of the backing-in rule, they should have made it against the rules to let your bumper obstruct the sidewalk.
That was the lowest common denominator.
So, now, we have our question:  What is the lowest common denominator in the cell-phones-while-driving law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894911</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1256731080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined."</p><p>So under your proposed law, if someone hits you and the cop isn't sure, you lose your license until he is.  And if he makes a mistake and finds you to be at fault, you lose your license?</p><p>No, that's far too extreme.  You've gone beyond simple safety precautions and up into revenge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined .
" So under your proposed law , if someone hits you and the cop is n't sure , you lose your license until he is .
And if he makes a mistake and finds you to be at fault , you lose your license ? No , that 's far too extreme .
You 've gone beyond simple safety precautions and up into revenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined.
"So under your proposed law, if someone hits you and the cop isn't sure, you lose your license until he is.
And if he makes a mistake and finds you to be at fault, you lose your license?No, that's far too extreme.
You've gone beyond simple safety precautions and up into revenge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899425</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256753760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that here in the UK the majority of cars are manual with a not insignificant minority of them being automatics.</p><p>However these automatics are generally for girly-men, housewives and old people.</p><p>Also you can sit your test in an automatic but it means that you can only drive automatics after passing, while if you pass in a manual you can drive both automatics and manuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that here in the UK the majority of cars are manual with a not insignificant minority of them being automatics.However these automatics are generally for girly-men , housewives and old people.Also you can sit your test in an automatic but it means that you can only drive automatics after passing , while if you pass in a manual you can drive both automatics and manuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that here in the UK the majority of cars are manual with a not insignificant minority of them being automatics.However these automatics are generally for girly-men, housewives and old people.Also you can sit your test in an automatic but it means that you can only drive automatics after passing, while if you pass in a manual you can drive both automatics and manuals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29909859</id>
	<title>Re:Get off your high horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256829420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canada doesn't have a Constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada does n't have a Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada doesn't have a Constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897991</id>
	<title>Re:Manual transmissions</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1256747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fail to see how you can categorize this as a "liberal" cause. This is a public safety cause.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how you can categorize this as a " liberal " cause .
This is a public safety cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how you can categorize this as a "liberal" cause.
This is a public safety cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899517</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256754060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most cars being shipped to the USA. I dare say manual transmission is the preference in most of the rest of the world...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most cars being shipped to the USA .
I dare say manual transmission is the preference in most of the rest of the world.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most cars being shipped to the USA.
I dare say manual transmission is the preference in most of the rest of the world...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29936859</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>FooGoddess</author>
	<datestamp>1256981460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC?</p></div><p>There is currently no provincial regulation prohibiting the use of electronic handheld devices whilst operating a vehicle in Alberta. Apparently some people in eastern canada have the central Alberta hamlet of Sherwood Park confused with the entire province of Alberta. "Yeah, it's out west somewhere." Just one more reason for our western annoyance with Torontonians and Ontario in general.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC ? There is currently no provincial regulation prohibiting the use of electronic handheld devices whilst operating a vehicle in Alberta .
Apparently some people in eastern canada have the central Alberta hamlet of Sherwood Park confused with the entire province of Alberta .
" Yeah , it 's out west somewhere .
" Just one more reason for our western annoyance with Torontonians and Ontario in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC?There is currently no provincial regulation prohibiting the use of electronic handheld devices whilst operating a vehicle in Alberta.
Apparently some people in eastern canada have the central Alberta hamlet of Sherwood Park confused with the entire province of Alberta.
"Yeah, it's out west somewhere.
" Just one more reason for our western annoyance with Torontonians and Ontario in general.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895485</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about you guys, but I can reach in to a bag to eat a small bunch of fries WITHOUT taking one hand off the wheel or looking away from the road.  And yes.. the same goes for a burger.  If you're eating anything more complicated than a taco, no you shouldn't be eating it or you should seek the assistance of the passenger.  You are on a roadway with man 1/2 ton chunks of metal moving at a high velocity.  A tire can/explode, steering parts can/will fail, and people can/will lose control of a vehicle and it could very-well be considered an "accident".  The point is when you get out of bed in the morning you  are risking your life all day long.  From a rock falling on you from space while you are in your bed, a crazy person blowing you up, or you choke on a south korean chicken ball.  How much are you willing to give up for the illusion of safety?</p><p>Favorite quote:<br>Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.<br>~Benjamin Franklin</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you guys , but I can reach in to a bag to eat a small bunch of fries WITHOUT taking one hand off the wheel or looking away from the road .
And yes.. the same goes for a burger .
If you 're eating anything more complicated than a taco , no you should n't be eating it or you should seek the assistance of the passenger .
You are on a roadway with man 1/2 ton chunks of metal moving at a high velocity .
A tire can/explode , steering parts can/will fail , and people can/will lose control of a vehicle and it could very-well be considered an " accident " .
The point is when you get out of bed in the morning you are risking your life all day long .
From a rock falling on you from space while you are in your bed , a crazy person blowing you up , or you choke on a south korean chicken ball .
How much are you willing to give up for the illusion of safety ? Favorite quote : Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. ~ Benjamin Franklin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you guys, but I can reach in to a bag to eat a small bunch of fries WITHOUT taking one hand off the wheel or looking away from the road.
And yes.. the same goes for a burger.
If you're eating anything more complicated than a taco, no you shouldn't be eating it or you should seek the assistance of the passenger.
You are on a roadway with man 1/2 ton chunks of metal moving at a high velocity.
A tire can/explode, steering parts can/will fail, and people can/will lose control of a vehicle and it could very-well be considered an "accident".
The point is when you get out of bed in the morning you  are risking your life all day long.
From a rock falling on you from space while you are in your bed, a crazy person blowing you up, or you choke on a south korean chicken ball.
How much are you willing to give up for the illusion of safety?Favorite quote:Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.~Benjamin Franklin
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895411</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1256735580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I had mod points, you'd get one--this is EXACTLY the kind of common sense that needs to be applied, not only to driving laws but to a lot of things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had mod points , you 'd get one--this is EXACTLY the kind of common sense that needs to be applied , not only to driving laws but to a lot of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had mod points, you'd get one--this is EXACTLY the kind of common sense that needs to be applied, not only to driving laws but to a lot of things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897365</id>
	<title>I blame Quebec!</title>
	<author>Virtucon</author>
	<datestamp>1256744940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tell you it's the French on the roadsigns.  It confuses people.  It's not the handheld devices...</p><p>Also, convert to the English system of measurement canucks!  No wonder people are having trouble having to convert Kms to Miles..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tell you it 's the French on the roadsigns .
It confuses people .
It 's not the handheld devices...Also , convert to the English system of measurement canucks !
No wonder people are having trouble having to convert Kms to Miles. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tell you it's the French on the roadsigns.
It confuses people.
It's not the handheld devices...Also, convert to the English system of measurement canucks!
No wonder people are having trouble having to convert Kms to Miles..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895519</id>
	<title>Two words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tinted windows</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tinted windows</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tinted windows</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896419</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256741280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These laws seems a bit OTT, and they don't solve the problem. For minor infractions, you get a fine &amp; that's it. This doesn't improve the behavour of some jackass with money in the bank, it only punishes the poor &amp; gives the city another revenue stream. If you want to change people's attitudes about using cellphones/gps/etc, then make the careless drivers re-take driving school &amp; pass a driving exam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These laws seems a bit OTT , and they do n't solve the problem .
For minor infractions , you get a fine &amp; that 's it .
This does n't improve the behavour of some jackass with money in the bank , it only punishes the poor &amp; gives the city another revenue stream .
If you want to change people 's attitudes about using cellphones/gps/etc , then make the careless drivers re-take driving school &amp; pass a driving exam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These laws seems a bit OTT, and they don't solve the problem.
For minor infractions, you get a fine &amp; that's it.
This doesn't improve the behavour of some jackass with money in the bank, it only punishes the poor &amp; gives the city another revenue stream.
If you want to change people's attitudes about using cellphones/gps/etc, then make the careless drivers re-take driving school &amp; pass a driving exam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897601</id>
	<title>Agreed, its an education issue.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256745900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In flight training they cover this... Aviate, navigate, communicate... in that order. Pilots are trained to deal with changes in workload and to consciously manage their attention.</p><p>It is a proven fact that you DONT want drivers giving 100\% attention 100\% of the time theyre behind the wheel. it leads to fatigue and highway hypnosis. Having occasional distractions which keeps your mind active and keeps the thought processes fresh makes you a BETTER driver... IF you can manage your attention correctly.</p><p>What we need is driver training. When pilots make a minor goof, the FAA doesnt give them a ticket, they suspend their license until they get some remedial training... they dont want your money, they want you to be safe!</p><p>When you goof up in a car &amp; get a ticket... you pay your $100 and what have you learned?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In flight training they cover this... Aviate , navigate , communicate... in that order .
Pilots are trained to deal with changes in workload and to consciously manage their attention.It is a proven fact that you DONT want drivers giving 100 \ % attention 100 \ % of the time theyre behind the wheel .
it leads to fatigue and highway hypnosis .
Having occasional distractions which keeps your mind active and keeps the thought processes fresh makes you a BETTER driver... IF you can manage your attention correctly.What we need is driver training .
When pilots make a minor goof , the FAA doesnt give them a ticket , they suspend their license until they get some remedial training... they dont want your money , they want you to be safe ! When you goof up in a car &amp; get a ticket... you pay your $ 100 and what have you learned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In flight training they cover this... Aviate, navigate, communicate... in that order.
Pilots are trained to deal with changes in workload and to consciously manage their attention.It is a proven fact that you DONT want drivers giving 100\% attention 100\% of the time theyre behind the wheel.
it leads to fatigue and highway hypnosis.
Having occasional distractions which keeps your mind active and keeps the thought processes fresh makes you a BETTER driver... IF you can manage your attention correctly.What we need is driver training.
When pilots make a minor goof, the FAA doesnt give them a ticket, they suspend their license until they get some remedial training... they dont want your money, they want you to be safe!When you goof up in a car &amp; get a ticket... you pay your $100 and what have you learned?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896313</id>
	<title>What About my 2meter handheld?</title>
	<author>chazd1</author>
	<datestamp>1256740860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about microphones for the police? I get it. The police are more professional and mentally equipped to handle the additional multitasking. Please don't try this at home. Go about your business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about microphones for the police ?
I get it .
The police are more professional and mentally equipped to handle the additional multitasking .
Please do n't try this at home .
Go about your business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about microphones for the police?
I get it.
The police are more professional and mentally equipped to handle the additional multitasking.
Please don't try this at home.
Go about your business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896145</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256740140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC?</p></div><p>BZZZZT Sorry, try again.</p><p>The Ontario law has just taken effect this week. The BC law comes into effect Jan-Feb of 2010. Alberta's government is considering similar legislation but nothing has been passed yet. So no, Ontario and Quebec are definitely not following BC and Alberta.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC ? BZZZZT Sorry , try again.The Ontario law has just taken effect this week .
The BC law comes into effect Jan-Feb of 2010 .
Alberta 's government is considering similar legislation but nothing has been passed yet .
So no , Ontario and Quebec are definitely not following BC and Alberta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC?BZZZZT Sorry, try again.The Ontario law has just taken effect this week.
The BC law comes into effect Jan-Feb of 2010.
Alberta's government is considering similar legislation but nothing has been passed yet.
So no, Ontario and Quebec are definitely not following BC and Alberta.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895459</id>
	<title>Re:Terrible Summary</title>
	<author>spyrochaete</author>
	<datestamp>1256735880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I so wish I had mod points today.  The new law makes it very clear that only handheld devices with a readable screen are not permitted to be manipulated while driving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I so wish I had mod points today .
The new law makes it very clear that only handheld devices with a readable screen are not permitted to be manipulated while driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I so wish I had mod points today.
The new law makes it very clear that only handheld devices with a readable screen are not permitted to be manipulated while driving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895583</id>
	<title>Changing gears requires taking one hand</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1256736840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>off the wheel.</p><p>They are going to be driving really slow I guess...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>off the wheel.They are going to be driving really slow I guess.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>off the wheel.They are going to be driving really slow I guess...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896529</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1256741640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As idiomatick stated below, with cell-phones the problem isn't so much holding the phone to your head, but the fact that you're having the conversation at all. You can be staring straight ahead while talking on the phone, but your attention is elsewhere -- with your caller, in fact -- and you're not actually paying attention to your driving any more. There are recent studies that support this.</p><p>The real story here isn't the law that was passed, but that the gov misinterpreted the studies. They probably should have banned cell calls -- whether hands free or not -- and left other hands-free devices alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As idiomatick stated below , with cell-phones the problem is n't so much holding the phone to your head , but the fact that you 're having the conversation at all .
You can be staring straight ahead while talking on the phone , but your attention is elsewhere -- with your caller , in fact -- and you 're not actually paying attention to your driving any more .
There are recent studies that support this.The real story here is n't the law that was passed , but that the gov misinterpreted the studies .
They probably should have banned cell calls -- whether hands free or not -- and left other hands-free devices alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As idiomatick stated below, with cell-phones the problem isn't so much holding the phone to your head, but the fact that you're having the conversation at all.
You can be staring straight ahead while talking on the phone, but your attention is elsewhere -- with your caller, in fact -- and you're not actually paying attention to your driving any more.
There are recent studies that support this.The real story here isn't the law that was passed, but that the gov misinterpreted the studies.
They probably should have banned cell calls -- whether hands free or not -- and left other hands-free devices alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896007</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256739420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC?</p></div><p>No, don't tell him.  You'll spoil his fantasy about how the West is a wonderful land of freedom, happiness, unfettered economic opportunity, where ponies and pickups and long guns (or hippies, in BC) can run free and wild, as is good and right, free from those mean men in eastern Canada.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC ? No , do n't tell him .
You 'll spoil his fantasy about how the West is a wonderful land of freedom , happiness , unfettered economic opportunity , where ponies and pickups and long guns ( or hippies , in BC ) can run free and wild , as is good and right , free from those mean men in eastern Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC?No, don't tell him.
You'll spoil his fantasy about how the West is a wonderful land of freedom, happiness, unfettered economic opportunity, where ponies and pickups and long guns (or hippies, in BC) can run free and wild, as is good and right, free from those mean men in eastern Canada.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896131</id>
	<title>The Problem I See</title>
	<author>Jekler</author>
	<datestamp>1256740080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too many people think of their vehicle in too personal a way.  It's not a freedom chamber or mobilized entertainment center.  It's a method of conveyance.  More people should worry about using their car to get from Point A to Point B instead of worrying about all the things they don't want to be interrupted doing during travel time.  In the U.S. alone, 100+ people will die TODAY primarily because people don't regard driving as a serious responsibility.

Why is it not enough that the miracle of modern locomotion enables us to shoot across a city in a matter of minutes?  People worry about not being entertained or out of touch for the duration of the trip.  The only thing that should concern us as drivers of lethal travel machines is getting to our destination safely.  If you die, or kill someone, en-route, who called/texted you or which one of your favorite songs was playing will be the least of your concerns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too many people think of their vehicle in too personal a way .
It 's not a freedom chamber or mobilized entertainment center .
It 's a method of conveyance .
More people should worry about using their car to get from Point A to Point B instead of worrying about all the things they do n't want to be interrupted doing during travel time .
In the U.S. alone , 100 + people will die TODAY primarily because people do n't regard driving as a serious responsibility .
Why is it not enough that the miracle of modern locomotion enables us to shoot across a city in a matter of minutes ?
People worry about not being entertained or out of touch for the duration of the trip .
The only thing that should concern us as drivers of lethal travel machines is getting to our destination safely .
If you die , or kill someone , en-route , who called/texted you or which one of your favorite songs was playing will be the least of your concerns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too many people think of their vehicle in too personal a way.
It's not a freedom chamber or mobilized entertainment center.
It's a method of conveyance.
More people should worry about using their car to get from Point A to Point B instead of worrying about all the things they don't want to be interrupted doing during travel time.
In the U.S. alone, 100+ people will die TODAY primarily because people don't regard driving as a serious responsibility.
Why is it not enough that the miracle of modern locomotion enables us to shoot across a city in a matter of minutes?
People worry about not being entertained or out of touch for the duration of the trip.
The only thing that should concern us as drivers of lethal travel machines is getting to our destination safely.
If you die, or kill someone, en-route, who called/texted you or which one of your favorite songs was playing will be the least of your concerns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256732100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah, 'blame Canada' - to put it in context, most Canadians west of Ontario, view Ontario in the same way most Americans view France - that is, hopelessly and utterly broken. So stuff like this isn't a surprise - I don't mean to troll, but those easterners are about as blissfully statist as you can get and still be called a democracy.</p></div></blockquote><p>You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , 'blame Canada ' - to put it in context , most Canadians west of Ontario , view Ontario in the same way most Americans view France - that is , hopelessly and utterly broken .
So stuff like this is n't a surprise - I do n't mean to troll , but those easterners are about as blissfully statist as you can get and still be called a democracy.You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, 'blame Canada' - to put it in context, most Canadians west of Ontario, view Ontario in the same way most Americans view France - that is, hopelessly and utterly broken.
So stuff like this isn't a surprise - I don't mean to troll, but those easterners are about as blissfully statist as you can get and still be called a democracy.You do realize that this particular law is in place in Ontario and Quebec because we were following suit from Alberta and BC?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895699</id>
	<title>What's really dangerous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Touch screen devices should be banned while driving because you have to look at them to use them, there is no way to "touch-type" on a touch screen.<br>
For people like me that suffer from night blindness, the several cop cars with extremely bright flashing lights that Washington State lines up along the side of the road every time they do highway maintenance at night actually make things less safe. Here's a hint: I can tell you are doing maintenance by the orange signs. When you shine bright lights into my eyes while I'm driving, I CAN"T SEE, and I'm much MORE likely to run over someone who steps into my path! Could we please ban bright lights on cop cars, at least for non-emergency use?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Touch screen devices should be banned while driving because you have to look at them to use them , there is no way to " touch-type " on a touch screen .
For people like me that suffer from night blindness , the several cop cars with extremely bright flashing lights that Washington State lines up along the side of the road every time they do highway maintenance at night actually make things less safe .
Here 's a hint : I can tell you are doing maintenance by the orange signs .
When you shine bright lights into my eyes while I 'm driving , I CAN " T SEE , and I 'm much MORE likely to run over someone who steps into my path !
Could we please ban bright lights on cop cars , at least for non-emergency use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Touch screen devices should be banned while driving because you have to look at them to use them, there is no way to "touch-type" on a touch screen.
For people like me that suffer from night blindness, the several cop cars with extremely bright flashing lights that Washington State lines up along the side of the road every time they do highway maintenance at night actually make things less safe.
Here's a hint: I can tell you are doing maintenance by the orange signs.
When you shine bright lights into my eyes while I'm driving, I CAN"T SEE, and I'm much MORE likely to run over someone who steps into my path!
Could we please ban bright lights on cop cars, at least for non-emergency use?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896247</id>
	<title>Oh really?</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1256740620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because I'm in BC now, and it was just a few days ago that they passed the anti-cellphone, and it still doesn't take take effect until early next year.</p><p>There is a law against "smoking in the workplace," as well, but I've yet to hear of any truckers being nailed for it while doing so in their trucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I 'm in BC now , and it was just a few days ago that they passed the anti-cellphone , and it still does n't take take effect until early next year.There is a law against " smoking in the workplace , " as well , but I 've yet to hear of any truckers being nailed for it while doing so in their trucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I'm in BC now, and it was just a few days ago that they passed the anti-cellphone, and it still doesn't take take effect until early next year.There is a law against "smoking in the workplace," as well, but I've yet to hear of any truckers being nailed for it while doing so in their trucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256730720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who on earth thinks drinking coffee while driving could ever be a good idea?</p><p>How do you change gear?</p><p>I applaud this law.</p><p>When you're in the car driving, that's what you should do, drive. *Not* eat sandwiches, drink coffee, play computer games, telephone, etc. etc. Doing so not only puts your stupid life at risk but mine as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who on earth thinks drinking coffee while driving could ever be a good idea ? How do you change gear ? I applaud this law.When you 're in the car driving , that 's what you should do , drive .
* Not * eat sandwiches , drink coffee , play computer games , telephone , etc .
etc. Doing so not only puts your stupid life at risk but mine as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who on earth thinks drinking coffee while driving could ever be a good idea?How do you change gear?I applaud this law.When you're in the car driving, that's what you should do, drive.
*Not* eat sandwiches, drink coffee, play computer games, telephone, etc.
etc. Doing so not only puts your stupid life at risk but mine as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29903857</id>
	<title>Summary is almost correct!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256731080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read this new law months ago, and yes, it does make it illegal to drive any car with even a built-in clock/radio/cd player.  Read the law for yourself: <a href="http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills\_detail.do?locale=en&amp;BillID=2099&amp;detailPage=bills\_detail\_the\_bill" title="ontla.on.ca" rel="nofollow">http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills\_detail.do?locale=en&amp;BillID=2099&amp;detailPage=bills\_detail\_the\_bill</a> [ontla.on.ca]</p><p>"78. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway if the display screen of a television, computer or other device in the motor vehicle is visible to the driver."</p><p>Built-in clock/radio/cd player? yes, covered under "other device in the motor vehicle [...] visible to the driver."</p><p>"Exceptions<br>(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the display screen of,<br>(a) a global positioning system navigation device while being used to provide navigation information;<br>(b) a hand-held wireless communication device or a device that is prescribed for the purpose of subsection 78.1 (1);<br>(c) a logistical transportation tracking system device used for commercial purposes to track vehicle location, driver status or the delivery of packages or other goods;<br>(d) a collision avoidance system device that has no other function than to deliver a collision avoidance system; or<br>(e) an instrument, gauge or system that is used to provide information to the driver regarding the status of various systems of the motor vehicle."</p><p>Any mention of anything relating to a clock/radio/cd player? nope!</p><p>Section 78 above is for all devices; hand-held wireless communication devices are covered in section 78.1 (as mentioned in 78(2)(b)).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this new law months ago , and yes , it does make it illegal to drive any car with even a built-in clock/radio/cd player .
Read the law for yourself : http : //www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills \ _detail.do ? locale = en&amp;BillID = 2099&amp;detailPage = bills \ _detail \ _the \ _bill [ ontla.on.ca ] " 78 .
( 1 ) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway if the display screen of a television , computer or other device in the motor vehicle is visible to the driver .
" Built-in clock/radio/cd player ?
yes , covered under " other device in the motor vehicle [ ... ] visible to the driver .
" " Exceptions ( 2 ) Subsection ( 1 ) does not apply in respect of the display screen of , ( a ) a global positioning system navigation device while being used to provide navigation information ; ( b ) a hand-held wireless communication device or a device that is prescribed for the purpose of subsection 78.1 ( 1 ) ; ( c ) a logistical transportation tracking system device used for commercial purposes to track vehicle location , driver status or the delivery of packages or other goods ; ( d ) a collision avoidance system device that has no other function than to deliver a collision avoidance system ; or ( e ) an instrument , gauge or system that is used to provide information to the driver regarding the status of various systems of the motor vehicle .
" Any mention of anything relating to a clock/radio/cd player ?
nope ! Section 78 above is for all devices ; hand-held wireless communication devices are covered in section 78.1 ( as mentioned in 78 ( 2 ) ( b ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read this new law months ago, and yes, it does make it illegal to drive any car with even a built-in clock/radio/cd player.
Read the law for yourself: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills\_detail.do?locale=en&amp;BillID=2099&amp;detailPage=bills\_detail\_the\_bill [ontla.on.ca]"78.
(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway if the display screen of a television, computer or other device in the motor vehicle is visible to the driver.
"Built-in clock/radio/cd player?
yes, covered under "other device in the motor vehicle [...] visible to the driver.
""Exceptions(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the display screen of,(a) a global positioning system navigation device while being used to provide navigation information;(b) a hand-held wireless communication device or a device that is prescribed for the purpose of subsection 78.1 (1);(c) a logistical transportation tracking system device used for commercial purposes to track vehicle location, driver status or the delivery of packages or other goods;(d) a collision avoidance system device that has no other function than to deliver a collision avoidance system; or(e) an instrument, gauge or system that is used to provide information to the driver regarding the status of various systems of the motor vehicle.
"Any mention of anything relating to a clock/radio/cd player?
nope!Section 78 above is for all devices; hand-held wireless communication devices are covered in section 78.1 (as mentioned in 78(2)(b)).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896855</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1256742960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How do you change gear?"</p><p>WTF? Have you never heard of an 'automatic' transmission? It changes gear for you. Amazing technology that's only been around for 30+ years - but meh I'll get off your lawn now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How do you change gear ? " WTF ?
Have you never heard of an 'automatic ' transmission ?
It changes gear for you .
Amazing technology that 's only been around for 30 + years - but meh I 'll get off your lawn now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How do you change gear?"WTF?
Have you never heard of an 'automatic' transmission?
It changes gear for you.
Amazing technology that's only been around for 30+ years - but meh I'll get off your lawn now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633</id>
	<title>RTFS</title>
	<author>Hammer</author>
	<datestamp>1256728080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law applies to handheld electronic devices. So unless your coffee mug is electronic or your climate control is handheld you are probably fine with coffee and a nice temp in your car</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law applies to handheld electronic devices .
So unless your coffee mug is electronic or your climate control is handheld you are probably fine with coffee and a nice temp in your car</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law applies to handheld electronic devices.
So unless your coffee mug is electronic or your climate control is handheld you are probably fine with coffee and a nice temp in your car</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899541</id>
	<title>Three types of distractions</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1256754120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are really three entirely different kinds of distractions, and we need to deal with them differently, I think.</p><p>
The first is visual distractions. Looking at stuff in the car. Your radio, your AC, your iPod, whatever.</p><p>
We can solve this by having more intuitive controls that can be found by touch, or at least can be found by looking but <b>adjusted</b> by touch so people glance away for a second to grab the control, but then look back at the road.</p><p>
The second is, for lack of a better term, 'hand distractions'. Let's face it, we all drive with one hand. Holding a drink and driving is not difficult, nor should it cause a problem most of the time. Yes, if we're in an emergency situation we'd want two hands, but, in reality, 90\% of auto accidents don't give people much time to react in any way except slamming on the brakes.</p><p>
The problem is when we try to hold <b>two</b> things, and end up juggling them and the wheel. Or holding an mp3 player in one hand and pushing buttons with the other hand. Or holding a burrito and trying to wipe off our shirt.</p><p>
This, strangely enough, could be solved in exactly the 'wrong' way...by making it easier for drivers to hold things. Cupholders are already doing that, and they have mounts for mp3 player, and some sort of table for food for the driver would seem a good idea.</p><p>
The third is concentration distractions, and there's not a hell of a lot to do about that. People driving when sleepy, people driving and talking angrily on their speakerphone, people chatting with others in the car. (Which is why my state, for example, bans the amount of people that can be in the car of teenage drivers.)</p><p>
The other two distractions <b>also</b> cause concentration distractions if we're not careful.</p><p>
Incidentally, anyone find it funny they specifically exempt calling 911. I guess that's for if someone sees a something major outside their car and doesn't have a hand's free kit, but I'm just laughing imagining people actually in auto accidents dialing 911 <b>during</b> the accident. (And wondering how that could possibly be a good thing.)</p><p>
Most people call 911 <b>after</b> an accident. Although, strictly speaking, sometimes their engine is still on, and they <b>technically</b> are still operating a motor vehicle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are really three entirely different kinds of distractions , and we need to deal with them differently , I think .
The first is visual distractions .
Looking at stuff in the car .
Your radio , your AC , your iPod , whatever .
We can solve this by having more intuitive controls that can be found by touch , or at least can be found by looking but adjusted by touch so people glance away for a second to grab the control , but then look back at the road .
The second is , for lack of a better term , 'hand distractions' .
Let 's face it , we all drive with one hand .
Holding a drink and driving is not difficult , nor should it cause a problem most of the time .
Yes , if we 're in an emergency situation we 'd want two hands , but , in reality , 90 \ % of auto accidents do n't give people much time to react in any way except slamming on the brakes .
The problem is when we try to hold two things , and end up juggling them and the wheel .
Or holding an mp3 player in one hand and pushing buttons with the other hand .
Or holding a burrito and trying to wipe off our shirt .
This , strangely enough , could be solved in exactly the 'wrong ' way...by making it easier for drivers to hold things .
Cupholders are already doing that , and they have mounts for mp3 player , and some sort of table for food for the driver would seem a good idea .
The third is concentration distractions , and there 's not a hell of a lot to do about that .
People driving when sleepy , people driving and talking angrily on their speakerphone , people chatting with others in the car .
( Which is why my state , for example , bans the amount of people that can be in the car of teenage drivers .
) The other two distractions also cause concentration distractions if we 're not careful .
Incidentally , anyone find it funny they specifically exempt calling 911 .
I guess that 's for if someone sees a something major outside their car and does n't have a hand 's free kit , but I 'm just laughing imagining people actually in auto accidents dialing 911 during the accident .
( And wondering how that could possibly be a good thing .
) Most people call 911 after an accident .
Although , strictly speaking , sometimes their engine is still on , and they technically are still operating a motor vehicle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are really three entirely different kinds of distractions, and we need to deal with them differently, I think.
The first is visual distractions.
Looking at stuff in the car.
Your radio, your AC, your iPod, whatever.
We can solve this by having more intuitive controls that can be found by touch, or at least can be found by looking but adjusted by touch so people glance away for a second to grab the control, but then look back at the road.
The second is, for lack of a better term, 'hand distractions'.
Let's face it, we all drive with one hand.
Holding a drink and driving is not difficult, nor should it cause a problem most of the time.
Yes, if we're in an emergency situation we'd want two hands, but, in reality, 90\% of auto accidents don't give people much time to react in any way except slamming on the brakes.
The problem is when we try to hold two things, and end up juggling them and the wheel.
Or holding an mp3 player in one hand and pushing buttons with the other hand.
Or holding a burrito and trying to wipe off our shirt.
This, strangely enough, could be solved in exactly the 'wrong' way...by making it easier for drivers to hold things.
Cupholders are already doing that, and they have mounts for mp3 player, and some sort of table for food for the driver would seem a good idea.
The third is concentration distractions, and there's not a hell of a lot to do about that.
People driving when sleepy, people driving and talking angrily on their speakerphone, people chatting with others in the car.
(Which is why my state, for example, bans the amount of people that can be in the car of teenage drivers.
)
The other two distractions also cause concentration distractions if we're not careful.
Incidentally, anyone find it funny they specifically exempt calling 911.
I guess that's for if someone sees a something major outside their car and doesn't have a hand's free kit, but I'm just laughing imagining people actually in auto accidents dialing 911 during the accident.
(And wondering how that could possibly be a good thing.
)
Most people call 911 after an accident.
Although, strictly speaking, sometimes their engine is still on, and they technically are still operating a motor vehicle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895865</id>
	<title>Re:They've taken a leaf out of the UK's book</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1256738760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ontario has such a law, "careless driving", but the penalties are pretty stiff (jail time is a possibility), and it's possible that the courts have decided that just driving down the road talking on your cell phone doesn't rise to the level of "careless driving". If a driver were weaving from lane to lane, or presenting some other obvious danger, while using an electronic device, then I would guess the cop would charge with Careless.</p><p>This law captures all use of handheld electronic devices without handsfree technology, whether the driver is obviously a danger to others or not (and probably has a lower maximum penalty).</p><p>Oh, and just by-the-by (not an issue with you or your post), I read the statute (Highway Traffic Act, s. 78.1 and follows) and contrary to the summary, this couldn't be used to bust people for tuning their radio or using the windshield wipers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ontario has such a law , " careless driving " , but the penalties are pretty stiff ( jail time is a possibility ) , and it 's possible that the courts have decided that just driving down the road talking on your cell phone does n't rise to the level of " careless driving " .
If a driver were weaving from lane to lane , or presenting some other obvious danger , while using an electronic device , then I would guess the cop would charge with Careless.This law captures all use of handheld electronic devices without handsfree technology , whether the driver is obviously a danger to others or not ( and probably has a lower maximum penalty ) .Oh , and just by-the-by ( not an issue with you or your post ) , I read the statute ( Highway Traffic Act , s. 78.1 and follows ) and contrary to the summary , this could n't be used to bust people for tuning their radio or using the windshield wipers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ontario has such a law, "careless driving", but the penalties are pretty stiff (jail time is a possibility), and it's possible that the courts have decided that just driving down the road talking on your cell phone doesn't rise to the level of "careless driving".
If a driver were weaving from lane to lane, or presenting some other obvious danger, while using an electronic device, then I would guess the cop would charge with Careless.This law captures all use of handheld electronic devices without handsfree technology, whether the driver is obviously a danger to others or not (and probably has a lower maximum penalty).Oh, and just by-the-by (not an issue with you or your post), I read the statute (Highway Traffic Act, s. 78.1 and follows) and contrary to the summary, this couldn't be used to bust people for tuning their radio or using the windshield wipers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29903765</id>
	<title>Next thing they'll outlaw stick shift</title>
	<author>Oryn</author>
	<datestamp>1256730540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What could be more dangerious than having to take one hand off the wheel and coordinate is with a leg pressing down a peddel, all whist driving at speed.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What could be more dangerious than having to take one hand off the wheel and coordinate is with a leg pressing down a peddel , all whist driving at speed .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>What could be more dangerious than having to take one hand off the wheel and coordinate is with a leg pressing down a peddel, all whist driving at speed.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Though this was a good idea, it seems to have been taken a little too far.</p></div><p>Here's how I reason. Regardless if I can or cannot drive perfectly well while drinking coffee with one hand, for all I know this could be completely fatal in your case. And if keeping the right to drink my morning coffee while driving potentially means losing my legs or even my life simply because you also had those rights, then it's a very, very, <i>very</i> small price to pay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though this was a good idea , it seems to have been taken a little too far.Here 's how I reason .
Regardless if I can or can not drive perfectly well while drinking coffee with one hand , for all I know this could be completely fatal in your case .
And if keeping the right to drink my morning coffee while driving potentially means losing my legs or even my life simply because you also had those rights , then it 's a very , very , very small price to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though this was a good idea, it seems to have been taken a little too far.Here's how I reason.
Regardless if I can or cannot drive perfectly well while drinking coffee with one hand, for all I know this could be completely fatal in your case.
And if keeping the right to drink my morning coffee while driving potentially means losing my legs or even my life simply because you also had those rights, then it's a very, very, very small price to pay.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896481</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256741460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no matter what you are doing, if you are hurtling down the freeway in 1ton+ of steel and plastic at 60mph or so, you are endangering others. Period. Forget about diver borne distractions, what about natural ones? Or mechanical failures? Or road hazards?  When driving we are risk, PERIOD. We accept that risk and move along.</p><p>And I'd say we most certainly do NOT have a right to travel, at least not in the USA.  Get yourself on the no-fly list and then try and find that right to travel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no matter what you are doing , if you are hurtling down the freeway in 1ton + of steel and plastic at 60mph or so , you are endangering others .
Period. Forget about diver borne distractions , what about natural ones ?
Or mechanical failures ?
Or road hazards ?
When driving we are risk , PERIOD .
We accept that risk and move along.And I 'd say we most certainly do NOT have a right to travel , at least not in the USA .
Get yourself on the no-fly list and then try and find that right to travel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no matter what you are doing, if you are hurtling down the freeway in 1ton+ of steel and plastic at 60mph or so, you are endangering others.
Period. Forget about diver borne distractions, what about natural ones?
Or mechanical failures?
Or road hazards?
When driving we are risk, PERIOD.
We accept that risk and move along.And I'd say we most certainly do NOT have a right to travel, at least not in the USA.
Get yourself on the no-fly list and then try and find that right to travel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29912415</id>
	<title>Ontario Government Totally Misses the Point?</title>
	<author>Spinlock\_1977</author>
	<datestamp>1256838660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typical of a government bureaucracy, this law misses the point.  All the studies I've heard about indicate that hands-free or not, talking on the phone takes your mind off of driving and that's what causes the accidents.  I'm not aware of any statistically significant variance in accident rates between hands-free or not.  When will we start electing scientists instead of money-fueled politicians?  In my life, I hope?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical of a government bureaucracy , this law misses the point .
All the studies I 've heard about indicate that hands-free or not , talking on the phone takes your mind off of driving and that 's what causes the accidents .
I 'm not aware of any statistically significant variance in accident rates between hands-free or not .
When will we start electing scientists instead of money-fueled politicians ?
In my life , I hope ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical of a government bureaucracy, this law misses the point.
All the studies I've heard about indicate that hands-free or not, talking on the phone takes your mind off of driving and that's what causes the accidents.
I'm not aware of any statistically significant variance in accident rates between hands-free or not.
When will we start electing scientists instead of money-fueled politicians?
In my life, I hope?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902043</id>
	<title>This rule was created for beavers, and moose.</title>
	<author>justicenfa</author>
	<datestamp>1256721420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the problem isn't really people doing this.  It's beavers and moose in cars that cause these issues.

It's a known fact that if a beaver is talking on a cell phone, it is more prone to plowing into an igloo on the side of the road.

Safety first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the problem is n't really people doing this .
It 's beavers and moose in cars that cause these issues .
It 's a known fact that if a beaver is talking on a cell phone , it is more prone to plowing into an igloo on the side of the road .
Safety first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the problem isn't really people doing this.
It's beavers and moose in cars that cause these issues.
It's a known fact that if a beaver is talking on a cell phone, it is more prone to plowing into an igloo on the side of the road.
Safety first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895637</id>
	<title>No big deal...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wait... is a vibrator considered a "hand held device"? Oh nooooooooo!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait... is a vibrator considered a " hand held device " ?
Oh nooooooooo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait... is a vibrator considered a "hand held device"?
Oh nooooooooo!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895647</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256737500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your analogies make no sense.  The ban is to curtail the use of a focus robbing device while operating a dangerous weapon (your vehicle).  Shooting a rifle is safe at the gun range, but not while reading slashdot and being attacked by an angry badger.   Someone who is reading a road sign and is distracted should not be driving to begin with.  Two very different problems at hand.</p><p>JJ Leeming, seriously...  He wrote that book back in the dark ages of highway safety, many of his findings are in fact incorporated into existing road construction guidelines and have become common practice.  Further studies have shown that a some of his conclusions are flat wrong and based on a lack of information at the time he was looking into this.  He was a road engineer and surveyor who took it upon himself to really apply himself to the science of road construction, driver safety, but he was using information that by and large is out of date today including the fact that people have so many more distractions at hand today.  He would have been the first person to ban cell phones and if you don't get that, you should read it again.</p><p>Yes I have read it, in it's entirety, and I teach competitive driving and am a believer in proactive defensive driving.  Horsepower is your friend, so are good brakes, great tires, and keeping your wits about you including not being distracted by a friggin cell phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analogies make no sense .
The ban is to curtail the use of a focus robbing device while operating a dangerous weapon ( your vehicle ) .
Shooting a rifle is safe at the gun range , but not while reading slashdot and being attacked by an angry badger .
Someone who is reading a road sign and is distracted should not be driving to begin with .
Two very different problems at hand.JJ Leeming , seriously... He wrote that book back in the dark ages of highway safety , many of his findings are in fact incorporated into existing road construction guidelines and have become common practice .
Further studies have shown that a some of his conclusions are flat wrong and based on a lack of information at the time he was looking into this .
He was a road engineer and surveyor who took it upon himself to really apply himself to the science of road construction , driver safety , but he was using information that by and large is out of date today including the fact that people have so many more distractions at hand today .
He would have been the first person to ban cell phones and if you do n't get that , you should read it again.Yes I have read it , in it 's entirety , and I teach competitive driving and am a believer in proactive defensive driving .
Horsepower is your friend , so are good brakes , great tires , and keeping your wits about you including not being distracted by a friggin cell phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analogies make no sense.
The ban is to curtail the use of a focus robbing device while operating a dangerous weapon (your vehicle).
Shooting a rifle is safe at the gun range, but not while reading slashdot and being attacked by an angry badger.
Someone who is reading a road sign and is distracted should not be driving to begin with.
Two very different problems at hand.JJ Leeming, seriously...  He wrote that book back in the dark ages of highway safety, many of his findings are in fact incorporated into existing road construction guidelines and have become common practice.
Further studies have shown that a some of his conclusions are flat wrong and based on a lack of information at the time he was looking into this.
He was a road engineer and surveyor who took it upon himself to really apply himself to the science of road construction, driver safety, but he was using information that by and large is out of date today including the fact that people have so many more distractions at hand today.
He would have been the first person to ban cell phones and if you don't get that, you should read it again.Yes I have read it, in it's entirety, and I teach competitive driving and am a believer in proactive defensive driving.
Horsepower is your friend, so are good brakes, great tires, and keeping your wits about you including not being distracted by a friggin cell phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896049</id>
	<title>OP is misinformed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256739660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in Ontario, and if you read the article carefully it states that hand-held devices are a no go. So you're not allowed to hold your mp3 player in your hand, but if it's mounted on the dash and you can switch songs with one push, you're okay.</p><p>The coffee thing is just ludicrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Ontario , and if you read the article carefully it states that hand-held devices are a no go .
So you 're not allowed to hold your mp3 player in your hand , but if it 's mounted on the dash and you can switch songs with one push , you 're okay.The coffee thing is just ludicrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Ontario, and if you read the article carefully it states that hand-held devices are a no go.
So you're not allowed to hold your mp3 player in your hand, but if it's mounted on the dash and you can switch songs with one push, you're okay.The coffee thing is just ludicrous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896103</id>
	<title>Bullshit.</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1256739900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did a few minutes of searching and it seems that the poster is spouting FUD.</p><p><b>There's no mention of banning coffee in cars.</b>  For goodness sake!  In fact, while I am by no means a fan of many aspects of government, the text in this bill reminds me of that character of sound reason and sanity which seems to embody Canadian thinking.  --Not saying Canada doesn't have its ignorant twits and government corruption aplenty, (it does!), but when it comes to low-level management of basic systems like the highways, this law and the responsible manner in which it will probably be applied, (this based on past experience), just makes sense.</p><p>Having been nearly flattened by cell phone drones, and having been in a car which came a hair's breath from causing a major accident on a highway because the driver was trying to look up a number on her cell phone, I think this is one of those laws which is a smart idea.  Canadians seem to be less fussy about following social directives we've agreed upon through law.  "Using a cellphone while driving is dumb.  Stop it."  The only difficult aspect is that people will have trouble resisting the urge to answer the phone when it rings.  That's the only bit of friction I foresee.</p><p>Also. . , to address some of the comments made below. . .  Changing gears in a manual car is not a parallel in terms of the level of distraction a driver experiences with a cell phone.  After you learn how to operate a standard vehicle, changing gears becomes an act of muscle memory only marginally more demanding than operating the break pedal or the steering wheel.  Anybody who has also driven a standard for more than a few weeks will agree.</p><p>Anyway, for those interested, below is the <a href="http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills\_detail.do?locale=en&amp;Intranet=&amp;BillID=2099" title="ontla.on.ca">bill in its entirety.</a> [ontla.on.ca]</p><p>-FL</p><blockquote><div><p>Bill 118 2009</p><p>An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of devices with display screens and hand-held communication and entertainment devices and to amend the Public Vehicles Act with respect to car pool vehicles</p><p>Note: This Act amends or repeals more than one Act. For the legislative history of these Acts, see the Table of Consolidated Public Statutes - Detailed Legislative History on www.e-Laws.gov.on.ca.</p><p>Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:</p><p>Highway Traffic Act</p><p>1. Section 78 of the Highway Traffic Act is repealed and the following substituted:</p><p>Display screen visible to driver prohibited</p><p>78. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway if the display screen of a television, computer or other device in the motor vehicle is visible to the driver.</p><p>Exceptions</p><p>(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the display screen of,</p><p>(a) a global positioning system navigation device while being used to provide navigation information;</p><p>(b) a hand-held wireless communication device or a device that is prescribed for the purpose of subsection 78.1 (1);</p><p>(c) a logistical transportation tracking system device used for commercial purposes to track vehicle location, driver status or the delivery of packages or other goods;</p><p>(d) a collision avoidance system device that has no other function than to deliver a collision avoidance system; or</p><p>(e) an instrument, gauge or system that is used to provide information to the driver regarding the status of various systems of the motor vehicle.</p><p>Same</p><p>(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle.</p><p>Exemption by regulation</p><p>(4) The Minister may make regulations exempting any class of persons or vehicles or any device from this section and prescribing conditions and circumstances for any such exemption.</p><p>2. Part VI of the Act is amended by adding the following section:</p><p>Hand-held devices prohibited</p><p>Wireless communication devices</p><p>78.1 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages.</p><p>Entertainment devices</p><p>(2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle.</p><p>Hands-free mode allowed</p><p>(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while using a device described in those subsections in hands-free mode.</p><p>Exceptions</p><p>(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to,</p><p>(a) the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle;</p><p>(b) any other prescribed person or class of persons;</p><p>(c) a person holding or using a device prescribed for the purpose of this subsection; or</p><p>(d) a person engaged in a prescribed activity or in prescribed conditions or circumstances.</p><p>Same</p><p>(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the use of a device to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services.</p><p>Same</p><p>(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met:</p><p>1. The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway.</p><p>2. The motor vehicle is not in motion.</p><p>3. The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic.</p><p>Regulations</p><p>(7) The Minister may make regulations,</p><p>(a) prescribing devices for the purpose of subsections (1) and (2);</p><p>(b) prescribing persons, classes of persons, devices, activities, conditions and circumstances for the purpose of subsection (4).</p><p>Definition</p><p>(8) In this section,</p><p>"motor vehicle" includes a street car, motorized snow vehicle, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry and road-building machine.</p><p>Public Vehicles Act</p><p>3. (1) The definition of "car pool vehicle" in section 1 of the Public Vehicles Act is repealed.</p><p>(2) The definition of "public vehicle" in section 1 of the Act is amended by striking out "car pool vehicles".</p><p>(3) The definition of "taxicab" in section 1 of the Act is amended by striking out "other than a car pool vehicle".</p><p>(4) Section 1 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:</p><p>Car pool vehicles</p><p>(2) Subject to subsection (4), a public vehicle and a taxicab do not include a motor vehicle, as defined in the Highway Traffic Act, with a seating capacity of not more than 10 persons, while it is transporting not more than 10 persons including the driver on a one-way or round trip where the taking of passengers is incidental to the driver's purpose for the trip.</p><p>Same</p><p>(3) For greater certainty, a trip described in subsection (2) includes a round trip between the residences, or places reasonably convenient to the residences, of any or all of the driver and passengers and a common destination, including the driver's and passengers' place of employment or education, or a place reasonably convenient to the driver's and passengers' various places of employment or education.</p><p>Same</p><p>(4) In order to be excluded from the definitions of public vehicle and taxicab, the use of a motor vehicle as described in subsection (2) must also meet the following conditions:</p><p>1. No fee is charged or paid to the driver, owner or lessee of the motor vehicle for the passengers' transportation, except an amount to reimburse the expenses of operating the motor vehicle as described in subsection (2) on a non-profit basis.</p><p>2. The driver does not take passengers on more than one one-way or round trip in a day.</p><p>3. The owner of the motor vehicle, or the lessee of the motor vehicle if it is leased, does not own or lease more than one motor vehicle used as described in subsection (2) unless the owner or lessee is the employer of a majority of the persons transported in the motor vehicles.</p><p>Same</p><p>(5) A motor vehicle described in subsection (2) does not include a motor vehicle while being operated by or under contract with a school board or other authority in charge of a school for the transportation of children to or from a school.</p><p>Commencement and Short Title</p><p>Commencement</p><p>4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.</p><p>Same</p><p>(2) Sections 1 and 2 come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.</p><p>Short title</p><p>5. The short title of this Act is the Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act, 2009 .</p><p>EXPLANATORY NOTE</p><p>This Explanatory Note was written as a reader's aid to Bill 118 and does not form part of the law. Bill 118 has been enacted as Chapter 4 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2009.</p><p>The Bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit driving with display screens and other devices in motor vehicles, as follows:</p><p>Driving a motor vehicle with the display screen of a television, computer or other device visible to the driver is prohibited. The display screens of global positioning system navigation devices, hand-held communication and similar prescribed devices, commercially-used logistical transportation tracking systems, collision avoidance systems and instruments, gauges and systems providing information regarding the status of systems of the motor vehicle are exempted from the prohibition. Drivers of ambulances, fire department vehicles and police department vehicles are also exempted. The Minister of Transportation may provide for further exemptions by regulation.</p><p>Driving while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or electronic entertainment device is prohibited. Use of such devices in the hands-free mode is exempted. Use of such devices while the motor vehicle is off the travelled part of the road, not in motion and not impeding traffic is exempted. Drivers of ambulances, fire department vehicles and police department vehicles are exempted from the prohibitions respecting hand-held wireless communication devices, as are any drivers using the devices to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services. The Minister of Transportation may prohibit holding or using other devices by regulation and may provide for further exemptions by regulation.</p><p>The Bill amends the Public Vehicles Act with respect to car pool vehicles, as follows:</p><p>The definitions of "public vehicle" and "taxicab" in the Act currently exclude a car pool vehicle. These definitions are amended and the definition of "car pool vehicle" is repealed. Section 1 of the Act is amended to state that a public vehicle and a taxicab do not include a motor vehicle described as follows: with a seating capacity of 10 or less; travelling on a one-way or round trip where the taking of passengers is incidental to the driver's purpose for the trip; no fee is charged or paid for passengers' transportation except to reimburse the expenses of operating the motor vehicle; the driver does not take passengers on more than one one-way or round trip in a day; and the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle does not use more than one vehicle as a car pool vehicle, unless the owner or lessee employs most of the passengers being transported in the vehicles.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a few minutes of searching and it seems that the poster is spouting FUD.There 's no mention of banning coffee in cars .
For goodness sake !
In fact , while I am by no means a fan of many aspects of government , the text in this bill reminds me of that character of sound reason and sanity which seems to embody Canadian thinking .
--Not saying Canada does n't have its ignorant twits and government corruption aplenty , ( it does !
) , but when it comes to low-level management of basic systems like the highways , this law and the responsible manner in which it will probably be applied , ( this based on past experience ) , just makes sense.Having been nearly flattened by cell phone drones , and having been in a car which came a hair 's breath from causing a major accident on a highway because the driver was trying to look up a number on her cell phone , I think this is one of those laws which is a smart idea .
Canadians seem to be less fussy about following social directives we 've agreed upon through law .
" Using a cellphone while driving is dumb .
Stop it .
" The only difficult aspect is that people will have trouble resisting the urge to answer the phone when it rings .
That 's the only bit of friction I foresee.Also .
. , to address some of the comments made below .
. .
Changing gears in a manual car is not a parallel in terms of the level of distraction a driver experiences with a cell phone .
After you learn how to operate a standard vehicle , changing gears becomes an act of muscle memory only marginally more demanding than operating the break pedal or the steering wheel .
Anybody who has also driven a standard for more than a few weeks will agree.Anyway , for those interested , below is the bill in its entirety .
[ ontla.on.ca ] -FLBill 118 2009An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of devices with display screens and hand-held communication and entertainment devices and to amend the Public Vehicles Act with respect to car pool vehiclesNote : This Act amends or repeals more than one Act .
For the legislative history of these Acts , see the Table of Consolidated Public Statutes - Detailed Legislative History on www.e-Laws.gov.on.ca.Her Majesty , by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario , enacts as follows : Highway Traffic Act1 .
Section 78 of the Highway Traffic Act is repealed and the following substituted : Display screen visible to driver prohibited78 .
( 1 ) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway if the display screen of a television , computer or other device in the motor vehicle is visible to the driver.Exceptions ( 2 ) Subsection ( 1 ) does not apply in respect of the display screen of , ( a ) a global positioning system navigation device while being used to provide navigation information ; ( b ) a hand-held wireless communication device or a device that is prescribed for the purpose of subsection 78.1 ( 1 ) ; ( c ) a logistical transportation tracking system device used for commercial purposes to track vehicle location , driver status or the delivery of packages or other goods ; ( d ) a collision avoidance system device that has no other function than to deliver a collision avoidance system ; or ( e ) an instrument , gauge or system that is used to provide information to the driver regarding the status of various systems of the motor vehicle.Same ( 3 ) Subsection ( 1 ) does not apply to the driver of an ambulance , fire department vehicle or police department vehicle.Exemption by regulation ( 4 ) The Minister may make regulations exempting any class of persons or vehicles or any device from this section and prescribing conditions and circumstances for any such exemption.2 .
Part VI of the Act is amended by adding the following section : Hand-held devices prohibitedWireless communication devices78.1 ( 1 ) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications , electronic data , mail or text messages.Entertainment devices ( 2 ) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle.Hands-free mode allowed ( 3 ) Despite subsections ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) , a person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while using a device described in those subsections in hands-free mode.Exceptions ( 4 ) Subsection ( 1 ) does not apply to , ( a ) the driver of an ambulance , fire department vehicle or police department vehicle ; ( b ) any other prescribed person or class of persons ; ( c ) a person holding or using a device prescribed for the purpose of this subsection ; or ( d ) a person engaged in a prescribed activity or in prescribed conditions or circumstances.Same ( 5 ) Subsection ( 1 ) does not apply in respect of the use of a device to contact ambulance , police or fire department emergency services.Same ( 6 ) Subsections ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met : 1 .
The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway.2 .
The motor vehicle is not in motion.3 .
The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic.Regulations ( 7 ) The Minister may make regulations , ( a ) prescribing devices for the purpose of subsections ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) ; ( b ) prescribing persons , classes of persons , devices , activities , conditions and circumstances for the purpose of subsection ( 4 ) .Definition ( 8 ) In this section , " motor vehicle " includes a street car , motorized snow vehicle , farm tractor , self-propelled implement of husbandry and road-building machine.Public Vehicles Act3 .
( 1 ) The definition of " car pool vehicle " in section 1 of the Public Vehicles Act is repealed .
( 2 ) The definition of " public vehicle " in section 1 of the Act is amended by striking out " car pool vehicles " .
( 3 ) The definition of " taxicab " in section 1 of the Act is amended by striking out " other than a car pool vehicle " .
( 4 ) Section 1 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections : Car pool vehicles ( 2 ) Subject to subsection ( 4 ) , a public vehicle and a taxicab do not include a motor vehicle , as defined in the Highway Traffic Act , with a seating capacity of not more than 10 persons , while it is transporting not more than 10 persons including the driver on a one-way or round trip where the taking of passengers is incidental to the driver 's purpose for the trip.Same ( 3 ) For greater certainty , a trip described in subsection ( 2 ) includes a round trip between the residences , or places reasonably convenient to the residences , of any or all of the driver and passengers and a common destination , including the driver 's and passengers ' place of employment or education , or a place reasonably convenient to the driver 's and passengers ' various places of employment or education.Same ( 4 ) In order to be excluded from the definitions of public vehicle and taxicab , the use of a motor vehicle as described in subsection ( 2 ) must also meet the following conditions : 1 .
No fee is charged or paid to the driver , owner or lessee of the motor vehicle for the passengers ' transportation , except an amount to reimburse the expenses of operating the motor vehicle as described in subsection ( 2 ) on a non-profit basis.2 .
The driver does not take passengers on more than one one-way or round trip in a day.3 .
The owner of the motor vehicle , or the lessee of the motor vehicle if it is leased , does not own or lease more than one motor vehicle used as described in subsection ( 2 ) unless the owner or lessee is the employer of a majority of the persons transported in the motor vehicles.Same ( 5 ) A motor vehicle described in subsection ( 2 ) does not include a motor vehicle while being operated by or under contract with a school board or other authority in charge of a school for the transportation of children to or from a school.Commencement and Short TitleCommencement4 .
( 1 ) Subject to subsection ( 2 ) , this Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.Same ( 2 ) Sections 1 and 2 come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.Short title5 .
The short title of this Act is the Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act , 2009 .EXPLANATORY NOTEThis Explanatory Note was written as a reader 's aid to Bill 118 and does not form part of the law .
Bill 118 has been enacted as Chapter 4 of the Statutes of Ontario , 2009.The Bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit driving with display screens and other devices in motor vehicles , as follows : Driving a motor vehicle with the display screen of a television , computer or other device visible to the driver is prohibited .
The display screens of global positioning system navigation devices , hand-held communication and similar prescribed devices , commercially-used logistical transportation tracking systems , collision avoidance systems and instruments , gauges and systems providing information regarding the status of systems of the motor vehicle are exempted from the prohibition .
Drivers of ambulances , fire department vehicles and police department vehicles are also exempted .
The Minister of Transportation may provide for further exemptions by regulation.Driving while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or electronic entertainment device is prohibited .
Use of such devices in the hands-free mode is exempted .
Use of such devices while the motor vehicle is off the travelled part of the road , not in motion and not impeding traffic is exempted .
Drivers of ambulances , fire department vehicles and police department vehicles are exempted from the prohibitions respecting hand-held wireless communication devices , as are any drivers using the devices to contact ambulance , police or fire department emergency services .
The Minister of Transportation may prohibit holding or using other devices by regulation and may provide for further exemptions by regulation.The Bill amends the Public Vehicles Act with respect to car pool vehicles , as follows : The definitions of " public vehicle " and " taxicab " in the Act currently exclude a car pool vehicle .
These definitions are amended and the definition of " car pool vehicle " is repealed .
Section 1 of the Act is amended to state that a public vehicle and a taxicab do not include a motor vehicle described as follows : with a seating capacity of 10 or less ; travelling on a one-way or round trip where the taking of passengers is incidental to the driver 's purpose for the trip ; no fee is charged or paid for passengers ' transportation except to reimburse the expenses of operating the motor vehicle ; the driver does not take passengers on more than one one-way or round trip in a day ; and the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle does not use more than one vehicle as a car pool vehicle , unless the owner or lessee employs most of the passengers being transported in the vehicles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a few minutes of searching and it seems that the poster is spouting FUD.There's no mention of banning coffee in cars.
For goodness sake!
In fact, while I am by no means a fan of many aspects of government, the text in this bill reminds me of that character of sound reason and sanity which seems to embody Canadian thinking.
--Not saying Canada doesn't have its ignorant twits and government corruption aplenty, (it does!
), but when it comes to low-level management of basic systems like the highways, this law and the responsible manner in which it will probably be applied, (this based on past experience), just makes sense.Having been nearly flattened by cell phone drones, and having been in a car which came a hair's breath from causing a major accident on a highway because the driver was trying to look up a number on her cell phone, I think this is one of those laws which is a smart idea.
Canadians seem to be less fussy about following social directives we've agreed upon through law.
"Using a cellphone while driving is dumb.
Stop it.
"  The only difficult aspect is that people will have trouble resisting the urge to answer the phone when it rings.
That's the only bit of friction I foresee.Also.
. , to address some of the comments made below.
. .
Changing gears in a manual car is not a parallel in terms of the level of distraction a driver experiences with a cell phone.
After you learn how to operate a standard vehicle, changing gears becomes an act of muscle memory only marginally more demanding than operating the break pedal or the steering wheel.
Anybody who has also driven a standard for more than a few weeks will agree.Anyway, for those interested, below is the bill in its entirety.
[ontla.on.ca]-FLBill 118 2009An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of devices with display screens and hand-held communication and entertainment devices and to amend the Public Vehicles Act with respect to car pool vehiclesNote: This Act amends or repeals more than one Act.
For the legislative history of these Acts, see the Table of Consolidated Public Statutes - Detailed Legislative History on www.e-Laws.gov.on.ca.Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:Highway Traffic Act1.
Section 78 of the Highway Traffic Act is repealed and the following substituted:Display screen visible to driver prohibited78.
(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway if the display screen of a television, computer or other device in the motor vehicle is visible to the driver.Exceptions(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the display screen of,(a) a global positioning system navigation device while being used to provide navigation information;(b) a hand-held wireless communication device or a device that is prescribed for the purpose of subsection 78.1 (1);(c) a logistical transportation tracking system device used for commercial purposes to track vehicle location, driver status or the delivery of packages or other goods;(d) a collision avoidance system device that has no other function than to deliver a collision avoidance system; or(e) an instrument, gauge or system that is used to provide information to the driver regarding the status of various systems of the motor vehicle.Same(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle.Exemption by regulation(4) The Minister may make regulations exempting any class of persons or vehicles or any device from this section and prescribing conditions and circumstances for any such exemption.2.
Part VI of the Act is amended by adding the following section:Hand-held devices prohibitedWireless communication devices78.1 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages.Entertainment devices(2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle.Hands-free mode allowed(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while using a device described in those subsections in hands-free mode.Exceptions(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to,(a) the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle;(b) any other prescribed person or class of persons;(c) a person holding or using a device prescribed for the purpose of this subsection; or(d) a person engaged in a prescribed activity or in prescribed conditions or circumstances.Same(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the use of a device to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services.Same(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met:1.
The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway.2.
The motor vehicle is not in motion.3.
The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic.Regulations(7) The Minister may make regulations,(a) prescribing devices for the purpose of subsections (1) and (2);(b) prescribing persons, classes of persons, devices, activities, conditions and circumstances for the purpose of subsection (4).Definition(8) In this section,"motor vehicle" includes a street car, motorized snow vehicle, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry and road-building machine.Public Vehicles Act3.
(1) The definition of "car pool vehicle" in section 1 of the Public Vehicles Act is repealed.
(2) The definition of "public vehicle" in section 1 of the Act is amended by striking out "car pool vehicles".
(3) The definition of "taxicab" in section 1 of the Act is amended by striking out "other than a car pool vehicle".
(4) Section 1 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:Car pool vehicles(2) Subject to subsection (4), a public vehicle and a taxicab do not include a motor vehicle, as defined in the Highway Traffic Act, with a seating capacity of not more than 10 persons, while it is transporting not more than 10 persons including the driver on a one-way or round trip where the taking of passengers is incidental to the driver's purpose for the trip.Same(3) For greater certainty, a trip described in subsection (2) includes a round trip between the residences, or places reasonably convenient to the residences, of any or all of the driver and passengers and a common destination, including the driver's and passengers' place of employment or education, or a place reasonably convenient to the driver's and passengers' various places of employment or education.Same(4) In order to be excluded from the definitions of public vehicle and taxicab, the use of a motor vehicle as described in subsection (2) must also meet the following conditions:1.
No fee is charged or paid to the driver, owner or lessee of the motor vehicle for the passengers' transportation, except an amount to reimburse the expenses of operating the motor vehicle as described in subsection (2) on a non-profit basis.2.
The driver does not take passengers on more than one one-way or round trip in a day.3.
The owner of the motor vehicle, or the lessee of the motor vehicle if it is leased, does not own or lease more than one motor vehicle used as described in subsection (2) unless the owner or lessee is the employer of a majority of the persons transported in the motor vehicles.Same(5) A motor vehicle described in subsection (2) does not include a motor vehicle while being operated by or under contract with a school board or other authority in charge of a school for the transportation of children to or from a school.Commencement and Short TitleCommencement4.
(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.Same(2) Sections 1 and 2 come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.Short title5.
The short title of this Act is the Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act, 2009 .EXPLANATORY NOTEThis Explanatory Note was written as a reader's aid to Bill 118 and does not form part of the law.
Bill 118 has been enacted as Chapter 4 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2009.The Bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit driving with display screens and other devices in motor vehicles, as follows:Driving a motor vehicle with the display screen of a television, computer or other device visible to the driver is prohibited.
The display screens of global positioning system navigation devices, hand-held communication and similar prescribed devices, commercially-used logistical transportation tracking systems, collision avoidance systems and instruments, gauges and systems providing information regarding the status of systems of the motor vehicle are exempted from the prohibition.
Drivers of ambulances, fire department vehicles and police department vehicles are also exempted.
The Minister of Transportation may provide for further exemptions by regulation.Driving while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or electronic entertainment device is prohibited.
Use of such devices in the hands-free mode is exempted.
Use of such devices while the motor vehicle is off the travelled part of the road, not in motion and not impeding traffic is exempted.
Drivers of ambulances, fire department vehicles and police department vehicles are exempted from the prohibitions respecting hand-held wireless communication devices, as are any drivers using the devices to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services.
The Minister of Transportation may prohibit holding or using other devices by regulation and may provide for further exemptions by regulation.The Bill amends the Public Vehicles Act with respect to car pool vehicles, as follows:The definitions of "public vehicle" and "taxicab" in the Act currently exclude a car pool vehicle.
These definitions are amended and the definition of "car pool vehicle" is repealed.
Section 1 of the Act is amended to state that a public vehicle and a taxicab do not include a motor vehicle described as follows: with a seating capacity of 10 or less; travelling on a one-way or round trip where the taking of passengers is incidental to the driver's purpose for the trip; no fee is charged or paid for passengers' transportation except to reimburse the expenses of operating the motor vehicle; the driver does not take passengers on more than one one-way or round trip in a day; and the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle does not use more than one vehicle as a car pool vehicle, unless the owner or lessee employs most of the passengers being transported in the vehicles.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895829</id>
	<title>Re:Not far enough for guys like you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256738520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Ya cavehobbit (sorry but I have to use people with your attitude as examples), don't forget all what you said applies to you on your toy bicycle weaving around cars, going up on sidewalks, ignoring stop signs. Worse yet is guys like you pulling up to the front of the line at a red light when I want to turn right, so that you sit in my blind spot and kick my car because I had the right of way, but you put one foot down and now pretend you are a pedestrian. Give me a break. The majority of those on those two wheel vehicles routinely break most traffic laws. You guys still even manage run into each other on bike paths because you are fiddling with your mp3 players instead of simply stopping off to the side. The one thing you do manage to do well, is when you do stop at a large intersection it to constantly sit adjusting your left nut and make a big show of your penis shifting (or more likely just trying to keep a semi on for the ladies. Woman cyclists just look down at their chest to make sure they are balanced and level).</p><p>Um how about we lower the accident rate before I have to pay yet another insurance rate hike because the cell phone abusers were to stupid to use common sence and pull off the road. This law is to protect the rest of us from the terminally stupid and to protect those idiots from themselves as well.</p><p>I don't care if Darwin takes those morons out of the equation,  but unfortunately we all know it's those guys you will see pacing back and forth on the road (not the side) of an accident scene, talking on their phone while their victim is loaded into the ambulance. I'll leave it to everyone to guess who they are calling and what they are saying on their phone? For the record, I haven't had an 'at fault accident' in over 35 years, but I sure have witnessed all of the above and much, much more idiocy almost every time I go out on the road.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya cavehobbit ( sorry but I have to use people with your attitude as examples ) , do n't forget all what you said applies to you on your toy bicycle weaving around cars , going up on sidewalks , ignoring stop signs .
Worse yet is guys like you pulling up to the front of the line at a red light when I want to turn right , so that you sit in my blind spot and kick my car because I had the right of way , but you put one foot down and now pretend you are a pedestrian .
Give me a break .
The majority of those on those two wheel vehicles routinely break most traffic laws .
You guys still even manage run into each other on bike paths because you are fiddling with your mp3 players instead of simply stopping off to the side .
The one thing you do manage to do well , is when you do stop at a large intersection it to constantly sit adjusting your left nut and make a big show of your penis shifting ( or more likely just trying to keep a semi on for the ladies .
Woman cyclists just look down at their chest to make sure they are balanced and level ) .Um how about we lower the accident rate before I have to pay yet another insurance rate hike because the cell phone abusers were to stupid to use common sence and pull off the road .
This law is to protect the rest of us from the terminally stupid and to protect those idiots from themselves as well.I do n't care if Darwin takes those morons out of the equation , but unfortunately we all know it 's those guys you will see pacing back and forth on the road ( not the side ) of an accident scene , talking on their phone while their victim is loaded into the ambulance .
I 'll leave it to everyone to guess who they are calling and what they are saying on their phone ?
For the record , I have n't had an 'at fault accident ' in over 35 years , but I sure have witnessed all of the above and much , much more idiocy almost every time I go out on the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Ya cavehobbit (sorry but I have to use people with your attitude as examples), don't forget all what you said applies to you on your toy bicycle weaving around cars, going up on sidewalks, ignoring stop signs.
Worse yet is guys like you pulling up to the front of the line at a red light when I want to turn right, so that you sit in my blind spot and kick my car because I had the right of way, but you put one foot down and now pretend you are a pedestrian.
Give me a break.
The majority of those on those two wheel vehicles routinely break most traffic laws.
You guys still even manage run into each other on bike paths because you are fiddling with your mp3 players instead of simply stopping off to the side.
The one thing you do manage to do well, is when you do stop at a large intersection it to constantly sit adjusting your left nut and make a big show of your penis shifting (or more likely just trying to keep a semi on for the ladies.
Woman cyclists just look down at their chest to make sure they are balanced and level).Um how about we lower the accident rate before I have to pay yet another insurance rate hike because the cell phone abusers were to stupid to use common sence and pull off the road.
This law is to protect the rest of us from the terminally stupid and to protect those idiots from themselves as well.I don't care if Darwin takes those morons out of the equation,  but unfortunately we all know it's those guys you will see pacing back and forth on the road (not the side) of an accident scene, talking on their phone while their victim is loaded into the ambulance.
I'll leave it to everyone to guess who they are calling and what they are saying on their phone?
For the record, I haven't had an 'at fault accident' in over 35 years, but I sure have witnessed all of the above and much, much more idiocy almost every time I go out on the road.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894767</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256729400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How does one demistify the windows?</p></div><p>Well, personally, I press the button on the end of the indicator stalk without taking my hands off the wheel. The radio mutes and the computer beeps. I say "demist on" and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moira\_Stewart" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Moira Stewart</a> [wikipedia.org] says "demist off". I then rant about how the fuck can "on" sound like "off" and repeat twice, usually that works, sometimes I have to take my hand off the wheel and stab the button.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does one demistify the windows ? Well , personally , I press the button on the end of the indicator stalk without taking my hands off the wheel .
The radio mutes and the computer beeps .
I say " demist on " and Moira Stewart [ wikipedia.org ] says " demist off " .
I then rant about how the fuck can " on " sound like " off " and repeat twice , usually that works , sometimes I have to take my hand off the wheel and stab the button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does one demistify the windows?Well, personally, I press the button on the end of the indicator stalk without taking my hands off the wheel.
The radio mutes and the computer beeps.
I say "demist on" and Moira Stewart [wikipedia.org] says "demist off".
I then rant about how the fuck can "on" sound like "off" and repeat twice, usually that works, sometimes I have to take my hand off the wheel and stab the button.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902145</id>
	<title>Re:Auto transmissions should be mandatory.</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1256721960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Best I can tell is that automatics aren't as popular in some areas because, at least initially, small engines are shit with an automatic transmission. So when you're in a country with expensive petrol, it's hard to justify a big engine.
<br> <br>
I'm sure that has changed and will continue to change. There is just no real reason for manual transmissions. Especially when a lot of people aren't coordinated enough to shift, drive, talk to someone and whatever else they feel like doing.
<br> <br>
People who think it makes them more manly to shift are just out dated dickheads who can't afford a real sports car that likely won't be truly manual either.
<br> <br>
The roads are becoming more crowded. Imo, something has to change. I don't think ticketing people is necessarily the answer. They just need to take away licences for a minimum of 5 years when people do something stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Best I can tell is that automatics are n't as popular in some areas because , at least initially , small engines are shit with an automatic transmission .
So when you 're in a country with expensive petrol , it 's hard to justify a big engine .
I 'm sure that has changed and will continue to change .
There is just no real reason for manual transmissions .
Especially when a lot of people are n't coordinated enough to shift , drive , talk to someone and whatever else they feel like doing .
People who think it makes them more manly to shift are just out dated dickheads who ca n't afford a real sports car that likely wo n't be truly manual either .
The roads are becoming more crowded .
Imo , something has to change .
I do n't think ticketing people is necessarily the answer .
They just need to take away licences for a minimum of 5 years when people do something stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best I can tell is that automatics aren't as popular in some areas because, at least initially, small engines are shit with an automatic transmission.
So when you're in a country with expensive petrol, it's hard to justify a big engine.
I'm sure that has changed and will continue to change.
There is just no real reason for manual transmissions.
Especially when a lot of people aren't coordinated enough to shift, drive, talk to someone and whatever else they feel like doing.
People who think it makes them more manly to shift are just out dated dickheads who can't afford a real sports car that likely won't be truly manual either.
The roads are becoming more crowded.
Imo, something has to change.
I don't think ticketing people is necessarily the answer.
They just need to take away licences for a minimum of 5 years when people do something stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895985</id>
	<title>Cultural Differences</title>
	<author>SuiteSisterMary</author>
	<datestamp>1256739360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So yesterday, I'm driving along Highway 118.  80 km/h speed limit.</p><p>There's this white van riding my ass.  I don't know why, as I'm cruise-controlling at the limit, and the highway is pretty empty.</p><p>Eventually he passes me, and sure enough, America plates.  Michigan, to be precise.</p><p>A minute or two later, I come back across him.  He's now stuck behind two cars.  The spacing is like this: car1-&gt;decent space-&gt;car 2-&gt;tailgaiting American-&gt;decent space-&gt;me.</p><p>The American keeps having to tap his brakes to keep from running into my poor countryman, who, obviously, is also on cruise.</p><p>Eventually, car1 wants to make a left hand turn.  So, signals and brakes.  Car2 also brakes.  American van, at this point, needs to crash-stop, and tries to swerve around the left of car2 to avoid a rear-end collision.  This causes him to damn near t-bone car1, who is executing his left turn.  So American van tries swerving back to the right, which causes him to damn near sideswipe car2 out of existance.  Finally, he gets back behind, and, this is the part that really nuked me, *continues with the tailgaiting.*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So yesterday , I 'm driving along Highway 118 .
80 km/h speed limit.There 's this white van riding my ass .
I do n't know why , as I 'm cruise-controlling at the limit , and the highway is pretty empty.Eventually he passes me , and sure enough , America plates .
Michigan , to be precise.A minute or two later , I come back across him .
He 's now stuck behind two cars .
The spacing is like this : car1- &gt; decent space- &gt; car 2- &gt; tailgaiting American- &gt; decent space- &gt; me.The American keeps having to tap his brakes to keep from running into my poor countryman , who , obviously , is also on cruise.Eventually , car1 wants to make a left hand turn .
So , signals and brakes .
Car2 also brakes .
American van , at this point , needs to crash-stop , and tries to swerve around the left of car2 to avoid a rear-end collision .
This causes him to damn near t-bone car1 , who is executing his left turn .
So American van tries swerving back to the right , which causes him to damn near sideswipe car2 out of existance .
Finally , he gets back behind , and , this is the part that really nuked me , * continues with the tailgaiting .
*</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So yesterday, I'm driving along Highway 118.
80 km/h speed limit.There's this white van riding my ass.
I don't know why, as I'm cruise-controlling at the limit, and the highway is pretty empty.Eventually he passes me, and sure enough, America plates.
Michigan, to be precise.A minute or two later, I come back across him.
He's now stuck behind two cars.
The spacing is like this: car1-&gt;decent space-&gt;car 2-&gt;tailgaiting American-&gt;decent space-&gt;me.The American keeps having to tap his brakes to keep from running into my poor countryman, who, obviously, is also on cruise.Eventually, car1 wants to make a left hand turn.
So, signals and brakes.
Car2 also brakes.
American van, at this point, needs to crash-stop, and tries to swerve around the left of car2 to avoid a rear-end collision.
This causes him to damn near t-bone car1, who is executing his left turn.
So American van tries swerving back to the right, which causes him to damn near sideswipe car2 out of existance.
Finally, he gets back behind, and, this is the part that really nuked me, *continues with the tailgaiting.
*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897173</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Bigbutt</author>
	<datestamp>1256744160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I too would much prefer a more broad rule.</p><p>I find people talking on cellphones tend to be looking roughly straight ahead.</p></div><p>Actually what I generally find is that when I see a car moving slower that surrounding traffic or weaving just a little into the bicycle lane or a full tire into my lane, a look as I go by confirms the driver is on his or her cell phone. I generally don't see someone eating or drinking in the same situation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Regarding cellphones... many young people can operate them without looking at the screen or phone, and can drop them in an instant if necessary to grab the wheel. I'm really worried about <i>other stuff</i> more.</p></div><p>Personally <b>anything</b> that distracts you from your main job should be reconsidered. There have been several instances here in Denver where someone was killed because a younger person was texting while driving. But I think that because it's more likely that a person texting is going to be young will skew the stats. My texting prowess is likely much less than someone half my age but I also don't have near the network of people who want to text with me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(Oh, and FYI - I'm responsible and pull over when making calls.</p></div><p>Welll, you are partly to blame for backups, since folks slow down for people stopped on the side of the road. Yea, idiot rubberneckers but it still happens.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You like to drink morning coffee huh, on the way to work? Well screw you!)</p></div><p>Nah. I don't even drink coffee. Can't stand the stuff. And it's hard to keep it balanced on the tank. I ride a motorcycle to work 99\% of the time (today it's snowing hard so I took the wife's car<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(  ).</p><p>[John]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I too would much prefer a more broad rule.I find people talking on cellphones tend to be looking roughly straight ahead.Actually what I generally find is that when I see a car moving slower that surrounding traffic or weaving just a little into the bicycle lane or a full tire into my lane , a look as I go by confirms the driver is on his or her cell phone .
I generally do n't see someone eating or drinking in the same situation.Regarding cellphones... many young people can operate them without looking at the screen or phone , and can drop them in an instant if necessary to grab the wheel .
I 'm really worried about other stuff more.Personally anything that distracts you from your main job should be reconsidered .
There have been several instances here in Denver where someone was killed because a younger person was texting while driving .
But I think that because it 's more likely that a person texting is going to be young will skew the stats .
My texting prowess is likely much less than someone half my age but I also do n't have near the network of people who want to text with me : ) ( Oh , and FYI - I 'm responsible and pull over when making calls.Welll , you are partly to blame for backups , since folks slow down for people stopped on the side of the road .
Yea , idiot rubberneckers but it still happens.You like to drink morning coffee huh , on the way to work ?
Well screw you ! ) Nah .
I do n't even drink coffee .
Ca n't stand the stuff .
And it 's hard to keep it balanced on the tank .
I ride a motorcycle to work 99 \ % of the time ( today it 's snowing hard so I took the wife 's car : ( ) .
[ John ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too would much prefer a more broad rule.I find people talking on cellphones tend to be looking roughly straight ahead.Actually what I generally find is that when I see a car moving slower that surrounding traffic or weaving just a little into the bicycle lane or a full tire into my lane, a look as I go by confirms the driver is on his or her cell phone.
I generally don't see someone eating or drinking in the same situation.Regarding cellphones... many young people can operate them without looking at the screen or phone, and can drop them in an instant if necessary to grab the wheel.
I'm really worried about other stuff more.Personally anything that distracts you from your main job should be reconsidered.
There have been several instances here in Denver where someone was killed because a younger person was texting while driving.
But I think that because it's more likely that a person texting is going to be young will skew the stats.
My texting prowess is likely much less than someone half my age but I also don't have near the network of people who want to text with me :)(Oh, and FYI - I'm responsible and pull over when making calls.Welll, you are partly to blame for backups, since folks slow down for people stopped on the side of the road.
Yea, idiot rubberneckers but it still happens.You like to drink morning coffee huh, on the way to work?
Well screw you!)Nah.
I don't even drink coffee.
Can't stand the stuff.
And it's hard to keep it balanced on the tank.
I ride a motorcycle to work 99\% of the time (today it's snowing hard so I took the wife's car :(  ).
[John]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899753</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a west coast Canadian</title>
	<author>ubercam</author>
	<datestamp>1256754900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you're talking in CFL terms, which wrongly places Winnipeg in the East division due to the lack of teams out that way, you're mistaken.</p><p>I know I'm being pedantic here, but do you know where the longitudinal center of Canada is? There are <a href="http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM26XV\_Longitudinal\_Center\_of\_Canada" title="waymarking.com">signs</a> [waymarking.com] on the Trans Canada marking it's location at <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=49.767225,-96.809722&amp;z=18" title="google.com">96 48' 35" West (or -96.809722)</a> [google.com]. If you look closely you can see the shadows of the signs marking it (one English, one French) in the middle of the page. In fact, this line is a mere 785 feet East of our front door. I measured with Google Earth so it might not be perfectly exact, but it's close enough for me.</p><p>Manitoba is DEFINITELY a Western province.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you 're talking in CFL terms , which wrongly places Winnipeg in the East division due to the lack of teams out that way , you 're mistaken.I know I 'm being pedantic here , but do you know where the longitudinal center of Canada is ?
There are signs [ waymarking.com ] on the Trans Canada marking it 's location at 96 48 ' 35 " West ( or -96.809722 ) [ google.com ] .
If you look closely you can see the shadows of the signs marking it ( one English , one French ) in the middle of the page .
In fact , this line is a mere 785 feet East of our front door .
I measured with Google Earth so it might not be perfectly exact , but it 's close enough for me.Manitoba is DEFINITELY a Western province .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you're talking in CFL terms, which wrongly places Winnipeg in the East division due to the lack of teams out that way, you're mistaken.I know I'm being pedantic here, but do you know where the longitudinal center of Canada is?
There are signs [waymarking.com] on the Trans Canada marking it's location at 96 48' 35" West (or -96.809722) [google.com].
If you look closely you can see the shadows of the signs marking it (one English, one French) in the middle of the page.
In fact, this line is a mere 785 feet East of our front door.
I measured with Google Earth so it might not be perfectly exact, but it's close enough for me.Manitoba is DEFINITELY a Western province.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29900245</id>
	<title>Law will need to change in 2 years...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256756820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with this law, aside from the obvious, is that it doesn't take into account future technologies very well.</p><p>we are at a crossroads right now with technology... we are moving to, or have moved to a Mobile world. Everything has come to a 'push of a button'. when in lies the problem.</p><p>Once more items move to a touchless interface this law will become moot. and we should once again be aloud to adjust the temperature again, or find a better radio station.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this law , aside from the obvious , is that it does n't take into account future technologies very well.we are at a crossroads right now with technology... we are moving to , or have moved to a Mobile world .
Everything has come to a 'push of a button' .
when in lies the problem.Once more items move to a touchless interface this law will become moot .
and we should once again be aloud to adjust the temperature again , or find a better radio station .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this law, aside from the obvious, is that it doesn't take into account future technologies very well.we are at a crossroads right now with technology... we are moving to, or have moved to a Mobile world.
Everything has come to a 'push of a button'.
when in lies the problem.Once more items move to a touchless interface this law will become moot.
and we should once again be aloud to adjust the temperature again, or find a better radio station.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894617</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256727960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does one demistify the windows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does one demistify the windows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does one demistify the windows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894777</id>
	<title>Re:RTFS</title>
	<author>EvilTwinSkippy</author>
	<datestamp>1256729460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And actually, the way the law is worded, my iPhone would be exempt. It's docked into a charger/fm transmitter station.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And actually , the way the law is worded , my iPhone would be exempt .
It 's docked into a charger/fm transmitter station .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And actually, the way the law is worded, my iPhone would be exempt.
It's docked into a charger/fm transmitter station.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894787</id>
	<title>Re:It does not go too far</title>
	<author>fridaynightsmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1256729520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, lets ban everything that could ever create a risk in any situation. Theoretically, I could be distracted by reading your post on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and not see an anyry badger lunging at me from next to my desk. Therefore, your posting on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. needs to be banned.</p><p>In fact, lets also ban the posession of slippery substances (if dropped on the floor they <em>could</em> cause somebody to slip and crack their skull open) etc etc etc</p><p>'Safe driving' is about <em>awareness</em>, being aware of the traffic around you and the road conditions, etc. It is NOT about a 'list of things you should <em>never</em> do, because in <em>some</em> situations they might be dangerous'.</p><p>I myself have nearly been hit by people distracted by road signs, FFS. By your logic road signs should be banned.</p><p>As for </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined. If they are at fault charged and if convicted of a simple infraction their license revoked. If injury or worse is caused they should be jailed. They are a danger to others.</p></div><p> , yeah, nice way to never ever find out the true cause of any accident because everyone involved is desperately trying to cover their asses against people like you. Go and read 'Road Accidents - Prevent or Punish' by J J Leeming, and then read it again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , lets ban everything that could ever create a risk in any situation .
Theoretically , I could be distracted by reading your post on / .
and not see an anyry badger lunging at me from next to my desk .
Therefore , your posting on / .
needs to be banned.In fact , lets also ban the posession of slippery substances ( if dropped on the floor they could cause somebody to slip and crack their skull open ) etc etc etc'Safe driving ' is about awareness , being aware of the traffic around you and the road conditions , etc .
It is NOT about a 'list of things you should never do , because in some situations they might be dangerous'.I myself have nearly been hit by people distracted by road signs , FFS .
By your logic road signs should be banned.As for Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined .
If they are at fault charged and if convicted of a simple infraction their license revoked .
If injury or worse is caused they should be jailed .
They are a danger to others .
, yeah , nice way to never ever find out the true cause of any accident because everyone involved is desperately trying to cover their asses against people like you .
Go and read 'Road Accidents - Prevent or Punish ' by J J Leeming , and then read it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, lets ban everything that could ever create a risk in any situation.
Theoretically, I could be distracted by reading your post on /.
and not see an anyry badger lunging at me from next to my desk.
Therefore, your posting on /.
needs to be banned.In fact, lets also ban the posession of slippery substances (if dropped on the floor they could cause somebody to slip and crack their skull open) etc etc etc'Safe driving' is about awareness, being aware of the traffic around you and the road conditions, etc.
It is NOT about a 'list of things you should never do, because in some situations they might be dangerous'.I myself have nearly been hit by people distracted by road signs, FFS.
By your logic road signs should be banned.As for Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined.
If they are at fault charged and if convicted of a simple infraction their license revoked.
If injury or worse is caused they should be jailed.
They are a danger to others.
, yeah, nice way to never ever find out the true cause of any accident because everyone involved is desperately trying to cover their asses against people like you.
Go and read 'Road Accidents - Prevent or Punish' by J J Leeming, and then read it again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895917</id>
	<title>Re:RTFS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256739060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I heard there was already in place a law preventing from eating or drinking while you're on a very major highway (think highways in the 400 series, Gardiner Expressway, QEW, etc), but I can't find a reference to it.</p><p>AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I heard there was already in place a law preventing from eating or drinking while you 're on a very major highway ( think highways in the 400 series , Gardiner Expressway , QEW , etc ) , but I ca n't find a reference to it.AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I heard there was already in place a law preventing from eating or drinking while you're on a very major highway (think highways in the 400 series, Gardiner Expressway, QEW, etc), but I can't find a reference to it.AC</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29909859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29903457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29906379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29906507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29908403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29901305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29904071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29901121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29936859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29901301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_2214220_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895083
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894963
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29901121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29903457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29901305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29901301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895709
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29904071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896685
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29909859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895411
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896083
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894933
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29906379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895367
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895503
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29906045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29908403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29936859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899661
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29899753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895035
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895969
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29897199
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894987
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895073
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895701
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896195
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896753
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29894967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895571
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29902005
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29896301
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29906507
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29898465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_2214220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_2214220.29895583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
