<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_04_1813239</id>
	<title>FCC/DOT Want High-Tech Cure For Distracted Driving</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257358500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes <i>"The Federal Communications Commission and the US Department of Transportation are teaming up to develop what they called high-tech solutions to the growing problem of distracted or inattentive drivers. The DOT and FCC said they will set up a working group to evaluate <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/47208">technology-based answers to the distracted driving problem</a> and will improve outreach efforts to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving, talking on cell phones while driving, and other distracting behavior that can lead to deadly accidents, the agencies stated."</i> Meanwhile, Korea has <em>overturned</em> a ban on dashboard <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8339680.stm">TV-watching for taxi drivers</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " The Federal Communications Commission and the US Department of Transportation are teaming up to develop what they called high-tech solutions to the growing problem of distracted or inattentive drivers .
The DOT and FCC said they will set up a working group to evaluate technology-based answers to the distracted driving problem and will improve outreach efforts to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving , talking on cell phones while driving , and other distracting behavior that can lead to deadly accidents , the agencies stated .
" Meanwhile , Korea has overturned a ban on dashboard TV-watching for taxi drivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "The Federal Communications Commission and the US Department of Transportation are teaming up to develop what they called high-tech solutions to the growing problem of distracted or inattentive drivers.
The DOT and FCC said they will set up a working group to evaluate technology-based answers to the distracted driving problem and will improve outreach efforts to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving, talking on cell phones while driving, and other distracting behavior that can lead to deadly accidents, the agencies stated.
" Meanwhile, Korea has overturned a ban on dashboard TV-watching for taxi drivers.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984146</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the cure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257022380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be the definition of a privalege. If you do not have the ability to demonstrate that you can drive safely, you cannot drive legally. Moreover, if you are caught driving illegally, or unsafely, you can be arrested for it. Your license can be taken away (if you have one) depending on whether a judge determines that you are capable of driving safely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be the definition of a privalege .
If you do not have the ability to demonstrate that you can drive safely , you can not drive legally .
Moreover , if you are caught driving illegally , or unsafely , you can be arrested for it .
Your license can be taken away ( if you have one ) depending on whether a judge determines that you are capable of driving safely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be the definition of a privalege.
If you do not have the ability to demonstrate that you can drive safely, you cannot drive legally.
Moreover, if you are caught driving illegally, or unsafely, you can be arrested for it.
Your license can be taken away (if you have one) depending on whether a judge determines that you are capable of driving safely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29991150</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>ami.one</author>
	<datestamp>1257012780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So correct.. Answering any of my wife's questions takes up nearly all my cognitive capabilities so i find myself either on the verge of crashing into someone or able to answer only with "Huh?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>So correct.. Answering any of my wife 's questions takes up nearly all my cognitive capabilities so i find myself either on the verge of crashing into someone or able to answer only with " Huh ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So correct.. Answering any of my wife's questions takes up nearly all my cognitive capabilities so i find myself either on the verge of crashing into someone or able to answer only with "Huh?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988432</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256994720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Show your kids that you love them, belt them in the car....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Show your kids that you love them , belt them in the car... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show your kids that you love them, belt them in the car....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982700</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the cure</title>
	<author>rhsanborn</author>
	<datestamp>1257018240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Motorcycle helmet law = nanny state.<br>
Banning violent video games = nanny state.<br>
Seat belt law = nanny state.<br> <br>There is a key difference between the items listed above and attempts to stop distracted driving. Items listed above are an attempt to protect us from ourselves. Distracted (or drunk) driving is an attempt to protect you or me from someone else, notably the nut texting her boyfriend who plows her 8 ton SUV into the side of your Prius.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Motorcycle helmet law = nanny state .
Banning violent video games = nanny state .
Seat belt law = nanny state .
There is a key difference between the items listed above and attempts to stop distracted driving .
Items listed above are an attempt to protect us from ourselves .
Distracted ( or drunk ) driving is an attempt to protect you or me from someone else , notably the nut texting her boyfriend who plows her 8 ton SUV into the side of your Prius .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Motorcycle helmet law = nanny state.
Banning violent video games = nanny state.
Seat belt law = nanny state.
There is a key difference between the items listed above and attempts to stop distracted driving.
Items listed above are an attempt to protect us from ourselves.
Distracted (or drunk) driving is an attempt to protect you or me from someone else, notably the nut texting her boyfriend who plows her 8 ton SUV into the side of your Prius.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984210</id>
	<title>Re:How about a special license and exam?</title>
	<author>Radtastic</author>
	<datestamp>1257022620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No way.  Passing an awareness test when you are focused at the task on hand is completely disconnected to real world behavior.  You can't give 100\% focus 100\% of the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No way .
Passing an awareness test when you are focused at the task on hand is completely disconnected to real world behavior .
You ca n't give 100 \ % focus 100 \ % of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No way.
Passing an awareness test when you are focused at the task on hand is completely disconnected to real world behavior.
You can't give 100\% focus 100\% of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985098</id>
	<title>Exactly how are they going to stop</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1256982240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>putting on makeup, shaving, eating your takeout burger which just spilled over your lap, drinking your coffee that just burned your mouth, and so on.</p><p>I understand the problem- I was almost T-Boned by a cell phone driver.  They do things that are illogical ( because they really are not home ).</p><p>But there are lots of kinds of distracted driving.  Hell, most people on the road are in a partial trance anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>putting on makeup , shaving , eating your takeout burger which just spilled over your lap , drinking your coffee that just burned your mouth , and so on.I understand the problem- I was almost T-Boned by a cell phone driver .
They do things that are illogical ( because they really are not home ) .But there are lots of kinds of distracted driving .
Hell , most people on the road are in a partial trance anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>putting on makeup, shaving, eating your takeout burger which just spilled over your lap, drinking your coffee that just burned your mouth, and so on.I understand the problem- I was almost T-Boned by a cell phone driver.
They do things that are illogical ( because they really are not home ).But there are lots of kinds of distracted driving.
Hell, most people on the road are in a partial trance anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982430</id>
	<title>User education?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1257017580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technology does not create policy, it follows it. This is a social problem, and technology is not the answer. It's just like copyright infringement, the war on drugs, poverty, or any other malaise of society. It's such a popular delusion though to think that throwing pharmaceuticals, medicine, computers, technology, money, etc., at a social problem fixes it. <i>It doesn't.</i></p><p>Distracted driving occurs because of a lack of training and understanding regarding the operation of a motor vehicle. The correct solution is more stringent examinations and training before getting a driver's license -- training that will impress upon drivers the importance of what they are doing: Which is operating a several ton metal can on wheels at high speeds around other people, which if improperly used or maintained, can kill both the driver and other people. Look at Germany: I don't hear distracted driving being as much of a problem there, because in that country, they worship the car. They have very strict regulations for safety and the citizens respect the responsibility that comes with vehicle ownership and use.</p><p>In this country, however, we have a sense of entitlement about driving. We allow people convicted of drunk driving two, five, or even twenty times to retain their license. And then we impliment stupid policy decisions like stripping people of their license for failing to pay child support or taxes as punitive measures. First, a driver's license should be a certification in which the only factor for getting or retaining it is suitability to operate a motor vehicle. Secondly, people should be required as a condition of holding that certificate, to take refresher courses on driving and their vehicle should be subjected to regular inspections.</p><p>What we need to do is make people take their driving seriously, and we do that by making clear standards about what vehicles and drivers we want on the public highway system. Half-assing it with technological solutions only succeeds in creating a web of unintended consequences that trap innocent people without making a substantive or qualitative improvement to driving conditions for the general public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technology does not create policy , it follows it .
This is a social problem , and technology is not the answer .
It 's just like copyright infringement , the war on drugs , poverty , or any other malaise of society .
It 's such a popular delusion though to think that throwing pharmaceuticals , medicine , computers , technology , money , etc. , at a social problem fixes it .
It does n't.Distracted driving occurs because of a lack of training and understanding regarding the operation of a motor vehicle .
The correct solution is more stringent examinations and training before getting a driver 's license -- training that will impress upon drivers the importance of what they are doing : Which is operating a several ton metal can on wheels at high speeds around other people , which if improperly used or maintained , can kill both the driver and other people .
Look at Germany : I do n't hear distracted driving being as much of a problem there , because in that country , they worship the car .
They have very strict regulations for safety and the citizens respect the responsibility that comes with vehicle ownership and use.In this country , however , we have a sense of entitlement about driving .
We allow people convicted of drunk driving two , five , or even twenty times to retain their license .
And then we impliment stupid policy decisions like stripping people of their license for failing to pay child support or taxes as punitive measures .
First , a driver 's license should be a certification in which the only factor for getting or retaining it is suitability to operate a motor vehicle .
Secondly , people should be required as a condition of holding that certificate , to take refresher courses on driving and their vehicle should be subjected to regular inspections.What we need to do is make people take their driving seriously , and we do that by making clear standards about what vehicles and drivers we want on the public highway system .
Half-assing it with technological solutions only succeeds in creating a web of unintended consequences that trap innocent people without making a substantive or qualitative improvement to driving conditions for the general public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technology does not create policy, it follows it.
This is a social problem, and technology is not the answer.
It's just like copyright infringement, the war on drugs, poverty, or any other malaise of society.
It's such a popular delusion though to think that throwing pharmaceuticals, medicine, computers, technology, money, etc., at a social problem fixes it.
It doesn't.Distracted driving occurs because of a lack of training and understanding regarding the operation of a motor vehicle.
The correct solution is more stringent examinations and training before getting a driver's license -- training that will impress upon drivers the importance of what they are doing: Which is operating a several ton metal can on wheels at high speeds around other people, which if improperly used or maintained, can kill both the driver and other people.
Look at Germany: I don't hear distracted driving being as much of a problem there, because in that country, they worship the car.
They have very strict regulations for safety and the citizens respect the responsibility that comes with vehicle ownership and use.In this country, however, we have a sense of entitlement about driving.
We allow people convicted of drunk driving two, five, or even twenty times to retain their license.
And then we impliment stupid policy decisions like stripping people of their license for failing to pay child support or taxes as punitive measures.
First, a driver's license should be a certification in which the only factor for getting or retaining it is suitability to operate a motor vehicle.
Secondly, people should be required as a condition of holding that certificate, to take refresher courses on driving and their vehicle should be subjected to regular inspections.What we need to do is make people take their driving seriously, and we do that by making clear standards about what vehicles and drivers we want on the public highway system.
Half-assing it with technological solutions only succeeds in creating a web of unintended consequences that trap innocent people without making a substantive or qualitative improvement to driving conditions for the general public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984730</id>
	<title>Re:Steering wheel spike</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256981160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then explain why there are so far fewer highway deaths per passenger mile today compared to back when dashboards were steel, knobs and buttons and other stuff stuck out waiting to impale one, and there were no seat belts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then explain why there are so far fewer highway deaths per passenger mile today compared to back when dashboards were steel , knobs and buttons and other stuff stuck out waiting to impale one , and there were no seat belts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then explain why there are so far fewer highway deaths per passenger mile today compared to back when dashboards were steel, knobs and buttons and other stuff stuck out waiting to impale one, and there were no seat belts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983446</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>Rick17JJ</author>
	<datestamp>1257020280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over the years, when going to an annual family reunion, I have had an 85 year old female relative riding with me, who tends to talk to me while I am changing lanes or making a turn. She does that even if I am in extremely heavy traffic in an unfamiliar city. Sometimes that has also been while also driving a car other than my own, which has very poor rearward visibility out of the mirrors and windows.<br><br>I have repeatedly politely asked her not to do that at moments like that, but she keeps on doing that anyway. Well, fortunately I only have that person (and her husband) as a passenger, on a long trip, about once a year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the years , when going to an annual family reunion , I have had an 85 year old female relative riding with me , who tends to talk to me while I am changing lanes or making a turn .
She does that even if I am in extremely heavy traffic in an unfamiliar city .
Sometimes that has also been while also driving a car other than my own , which has very poor rearward visibility out of the mirrors and windows.I have repeatedly politely asked her not to do that at moments like that , but she keeps on doing that anyway .
Well , fortunately I only have that person ( and her husband ) as a passenger , on a long trip , about once a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the years, when going to an annual family reunion, I have had an 85 year old female relative riding with me, who tends to talk to me while I am changing lanes or making a turn.
She does that even if I am in extremely heavy traffic in an unfamiliar city.
Sometimes that has also been while also driving a car other than my own, which has very poor rearward visibility out of the mirrors and windows.I have repeatedly politely asked her not to do that at moments like that, but she keeps on doing that anyway.
Well, fortunately I only have that person (and her husband) as a passenger, on a long trip, about once a year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983662</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that "technological solution"</title>
	<author>ubercam</author>
	<datestamp>1257020880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah not remembering parts of my drive happens to me quite often. I think kind of thing only happens on commonly driven routes, like your daily route to work and back. My route is 20/80 city/highway and the highway portion has one set of lights, one 90 turn, a couple minor bends and 1 or 2 stop signs. It's very easy for the mind to wander, especially since there is very little of interest to look at, unless you're really into checking out how well Farmer Joe's crops are doing. It's quite a boring drive so it's also unfortunately quite easy to catch yourself drifting off to sleep if you're tired. I find that when I struggle to stay awake during the drive home, I'm not usually tired anymore when I get out of the car, probably because I'm no longer sitting in a nice comfy seat doing something that requires little to no input... straight road, so no need to steer and with the car on cruise no need to keep my foot on the accelerator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah not remembering parts of my drive happens to me quite often .
I think kind of thing only happens on commonly driven routes , like your daily route to work and back .
My route is 20/80 city/highway and the highway portion has one set of lights , one 90 turn , a couple minor bends and 1 or 2 stop signs .
It 's very easy for the mind to wander , especially since there is very little of interest to look at , unless you 're really into checking out how well Farmer Joe 's crops are doing .
It 's quite a boring drive so it 's also unfortunately quite easy to catch yourself drifting off to sleep if you 're tired .
I find that when I struggle to stay awake during the drive home , I 'm not usually tired anymore when I get out of the car , probably because I 'm no longer sitting in a nice comfy seat doing something that requires little to no input... straight road , so no need to steer and with the car on cruise no need to keep my foot on the accelerator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah not remembering parts of my drive happens to me quite often.
I think kind of thing only happens on commonly driven routes, like your daily route to work and back.
My route is 20/80 city/highway and the highway portion has one set of lights, one 90 turn, a couple minor bends and 1 or 2 stop signs.
It's very easy for the mind to wander, especially since there is very little of interest to look at, unless you're really into checking out how well Farmer Joe's crops are doing.
It's quite a boring drive so it's also unfortunately quite easy to catch yourself drifting off to sleep if you're tired.
I find that when I struggle to stay awake during the drive home, I'm not usually tired anymore when I get out of the car, probably because I'm no longer sitting in a nice comfy seat doing something that requires little to no input... straight road, so no need to steer and with the car on cruise no need to keep my foot on the accelerator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983274</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Coren22</author>
	<datestamp>1257019920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the SI unit for deaths, I think you didn't convert it correctly.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the SI unit for deaths , I think you did n't convert it correctly .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the SI unit for deaths, I think you didn't convert it correctly.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983188</id>
	<title>Re:How about a special license and exam?</title>
	<author>netruner</author>
	<datestamp>1257019680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems closer to the "If I can't do it, it must be impossible" argument - the fallacy in this argument should be apparent.  What I have found is that the people who back the anti-phone arguments fit a particular pattern:<br> <br>
1.)  They hang on to the idea that a cell phone is a luxury and, thus, anyone using one while driving is flaunting theirs<br>
2.)  They ignore how many distractions come from the radio in the car - they would never move to ban radios<br>
3.)  They ignore how many distractions come from passengers/pets - they would never more to ban passengers/pets<br>
4.)  They hold on to the idea that if a phone was in the car, it caused the accident, no matter what the actual cause was<br>
5.)  To such people, the citing of a couple of personal examples shows what all of humankind is like<br>
6.)  They fit into the general pattern of those who want to tell others what to do<br> <br>

The truth is that when bad things happen, people inevitably seek to blame whatever thing/behavior that they don't like but think they have good enough chances of hanging the blame on.  Aren't there any studies on actual distraction level and human tolerance for such?  Statistics taken at the scene of accidents are just as unreliable as they were in the 80's when any car with any amount of alcohol in it, regardless of form (groceries, sealed bottles, etc) was considered an "alcohol-related" accident.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems closer to the " If I ca n't do it , it must be impossible " argument - the fallacy in this argument should be apparent .
What I have found is that the people who back the anti-phone arguments fit a particular pattern : 1 .
) They hang on to the idea that a cell phone is a luxury and , thus , anyone using one while driving is flaunting theirs 2 .
) They ignore how many distractions come from the radio in the car - they would never move to ban radios 3 .
) They ignore how many distractions come from passengers/pets - they would never more to ban passengers/pets 4 .
) They hold on to the idea that if a phone was in the car , it caused the accident , no matter what the actual cause was 5 .
) To such people , the citing of a couple of personal examples shows what all of humankind is like 6 .
) They fit into the general pattern of those who want to tell others what to do The truth is that when bad things happen , people inevitably seek to blame whatever thing/behavior that they do n't like but think they have good enough chances of hanging the blame on .
Are n't there any studies on actual distraction level and human tolerance for such ?
Statistics taken at the scene of accidents are just as unreliable as they were in the 80 's when any car with any amount of alcohol in it , regardless of form ( groceries , sealed bottles , etc ) was considered an " alcohol-related " accident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems closer to the "If I can't do it, it must be impossible" argument - the fallacy in this argument should be apparent.
What I have found is that the people who back the anti-phone arguments fit a particular pattern: 
1.
)  They hang on to the idea that a cell phone is a luxury and, thus, anyone using one while driving is flaunting theirs
2.
)  They ignore how many distractions come from the radio in the car - they would never move to ban radios
3.
)  They ignore how many distractions come from passengers/pets - they would never more to ban passengers/pets
4.
)  They hold on to the idea that if a phone was in the car, it caused the accident, no matter what the actual cause was
5.
)  To such people, the citing of a couple of personal examples shows what all of humankind is like
6.
)  They fit into the general pattern of those who want to tell others what to do 

The truth is that when bad things happen, people inevitably seek to blame whatever thing/behavior that they don't like but think they have good enough chances of hanging the blame on.
Aren't there any studies on actual distraction level and human tolerance for such?
Statistics taken at the scene of accidents are just as unreliable as they were in the 80's when any car with any amount of alcohol in it, regardless of form (groceries, sealed bottles, etc) was considered an "alcohol-related" accident.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982996</id>
	<title>Re:How about a special license and exam?</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1257019140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are people who can drink and drive all safely too, do they get a test and permit too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are people who can drink and drive all safely too , do they get a test and permit too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are people who can drink and drive all safely too, do they get a test and permit too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983510</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that "technological solution"</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1257020520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference is your reaction... did you suddenly swerve across 5 lanes to try to make that turn, or did you just continue to the next exit? The people that scare me are the ones who don't react properly to the unexpected, even if it's caused by inattentiveness...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is your reaction... did you suddenly swerve across 5 lanes to try to make that turn , or did you just continue to the next exit ?
The people that scare me are the ones who do n't react properly to the unexpected , even if it 's caused by inattentiveness.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is your reaction... did you suddenly swerve across 5 lanes to try to make that turn, or did you just continue to the next exit?
The people that scare me are the ones who don't react properly to the unexpected, even if it's caused by inattentiveness...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984094</id>
	<title>Re:Simple</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1257022260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then the idiots will roll down a window to drive down the highway so they can get a signal, and have the additional distraction of highway wind noise while they are texting, which they will drown out by turning up the radio so they can't hear the horn of the person they are about to wipe out.  And if someone does have an emergency on the highway, they'll have to step out of their car or roll down the window to call for help, meaning they're either creating a larger hazard or can't be heard when calling.</p><p>Or, more likely, someone who likes to talk in their car will simply spend $50 on a passive waveguide antenna.  Cell signal is now available inside the faraday cage.  Ten minute install.  Back to distractionland.</p><p>"Eliminating the distractions" is a great concept, but cell-connected distractions are the latest in a very VERY long list of distractions, are very expensive to fix, and the fixes are very easy to bypass.</p><p>Ever been cut off or close-buzzed by someone shaving?  Adjusting the radio or environmental controls?  Reading the paper spread across the steering wheel?  Trying to figure out where they are on a paper map spread out across the steering wheel and dash?  Eating a hoagie/grinder/sub or other 2-hands-required food?  Reaching into the bag to dig out that last french fry?  Tipping their head back to slurp down that last drop of coffee, or struggling with the lid to get scalded by the first drop?  Squinting through a 3" x 3" square of visibility in their windshield because they were too lazy to scrape off the rest of the snow/ice?  Lighting a ciggie or putting one out?  Not to mention drunk, sleep-deprived, or simply angry at something (note that the last three are almost impossible to differentiate from the point of view of another driver).</p><p>Ever accidentally drifted off-lane or while doing any of those things, or any action that didn't involve continuous "hands in 2-10, eyes on road, occasional dash/mirror scan"?</p><p>Calling and texting are the big panic now because they are new.  I'm not saying they aren't real distractions, just that they are just one more distraction and that a technical solution to them isn't going to be effective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then the idiots will roll down a window to drive down the highway so they can get a signal , and have the additional distraction of highway wind noise while they are texting , which they will drown out by turning up the radio so they ca n't hear the horn of the person they are about to wipe out .
And if someone does have an emergency on the highway , they 'll have to step out of their car or roll down the window to call for help , meaning they 're either creating a larger hazard or ca n't be heard when calling.Or , more likely , someone who likes to talk in their car will simply spend $ 50 on a passive waveguide antenna .
Cell signal is now available inside the faraday cage .
Ten minute install .
Back to distractionland .
" Eliminating the distractions " is a great concept , but cell-connected distractions are the latest in a very VERY long list of distractions , are very expensive to fix , and the fixes are very easy to bypass.Ever been cut off or close-buzzed by someone shaving ?
Adjusting the radio or environmental controls ?
Reading the paper spread across the steering wheel ?
Trying to figure out where they are on a paper map spread out across the steering wheel and dash ?
Eating a hoagie/grinder/sub or other 2-hands-required food ?
Reaching into the bag to dig out that last french fry ?
Tipping their head back to slurp down that last drop of coffee , or struggling with the lid to get scalded by the first drop ?
Squinting through a 3 " x 3 " square of visibility in their windshield because they were too lazy to scrape off the rest of the snow/ice ?
Lighting a ciggie or putting one out ?
Not to mention drunk , sleep-deprived , or simply angry at something ( note that the last three are almost impossible to differentiate from the point of view of another driver ) .Ever accidentally drifted off-lane or while doing any of those things , or any action that did n't involve continuous " hands in 2-10 , eyes on road , occasional dash/mirror scan " ? Calling and texting are the big panic now because they are new .
I 'm not saying they are n't real distractions , just that they are just one more distraction and that a technical solution to them is n't going to be effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then the idiots will roll down a window to drive down the highway so they can get a signal, and have the additional distraction of highway wind noise while they are texting, which they will drown out by turning up the radio so they can't hear the horn of the person they are about to wipe out.
And if someone does have an emergency on the highway, they'll have to step out of their car or roll down the window to call for help, meaning they're either creating a larger hazard or can't be heard when calling.Or, more likely, someone who likes to talk in their car will simply spend $50 on a passive waveguide antenna.
Cell signal is now available inside the faraday cage.
Ten minute install.
Back to distractionland.
"Eliminating the distractions" is a great concept, but cell-connected distractions are the latest in a very VERY long list of distractions, are very expensive to fix, and the fixes are very easy to bypass.Ever been cut off or close-buzzed by someone shaving?
Adjusting the radio or environmental controls?
Reading the paper spread across the steering wheel?
Trying to figure out where they are on a paper map spread out across the steering wheel and dash?
Eating a hoagie/grinder/sub or other 2-hands-required food?
Reaching into the bag to dig out that last french fry?
Tipping their head back to slurp down that last drop of coffee, or struggling with the lid to get scalded by the first drop?
Squinting through a 3" x 3" square of visibility in their windshield because they were too lazy to scrape off the rest of the snow/ice?
Lighting a ciggie or putting one out?
Not to mention drunk, sleep-deprived, or simply angry at something (note that the last three are almost impossible to differentiate from the point of view of another driver).Ever accidentally drifted off-lane or while doing any of those things, or any action that didn't involve continuous "hands in 2-10, eyes on road, occasional dash/mirror scan"?Calling and texting are the big panic now because they are new.
I'm not saying they aren't real distractions, just that they are just one more distraction and that a technical solution to them isn't going to be effective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985138</id>
	<title>Re:User education?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1256982360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It's such a popular delusion though to think that throwing pharmaceuticals, medicine, computers, technology, money, etc., at a social problem fixes it.</p></div><p>That's because very often it does. Not enough water? Build a dam or a salt-water purifier. People dying of malaria? We have medicine for that. Technology wins wars. It keeps us safe and warm in winter.  It solves so many problems.<br> <br>
It could solve this problem too, and by this problem I mean the problem of people dying/getting injured in car accidents. There are some simple technology fixes we could put in place to reduce problems. One person in this thread mentioned rumble strips on the sides of the roads, and putting them in the median as well. Another technological solution would be to put concrete barriers in the middle of heavily traveled roads.  You can probably think of some more on your own.
<br> <br>
A more complex solution that has also been mentioned in this story is to have cars drive themselves.  It would easily solve the problem of distracted drivers by removing the driver from the situation.<br> <br>
While I think you probably have some good reasons for your anti-technology thoughts, I think it might be more accurate to hate on inappropriately applied technologies or just inappropriately applied solutions in general. Technology isn't the problem, it is just a tool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's such a popular delusion though to think that throwing pharmaceuticals , medicine , computers , technology , money , etc. , at a social problem fixes it.That 's because very often it does .
Not enough water ?
Build a dam or a salt-water purifier .
People dying of malaria ?
We have medicine for that .
Technology wins wars .
It keeps us safe and warm in winter .
It solves so many problems .
It could solve this problem too , and by this problem I mean the problem of people dying/getting injured in car accidents .
There are some simple technology fixes we could put in place to reduce problems .
One person in this thread mentioned rumble strips on the sides of the roads , and putting them in the median as well .
Another technological solution would be to put concrete barriers in the middle of heavily traveled roads .
You can probably think of some more on your own .
A more complex solution that has also been mentioned in this story is to have cars drive themselves .
It would easily solve the problem of distracted drivers by removing the driver from the situation .
While I think you probably have some good reasons for your anti-technology thoughts , I think it might be more accurate to hate on inappropriately applied technologies or just inappropriately applied solutions in general .
Technology is n't the problem , it is just a tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's such a popular delusion though to think that throwing pharmaceuticals, medicine, computers, technology, money, etc., at a social problem fixes it.That's because very often it does.
Not enough water?
Build a dam or a salt-water purifier.
People dying of malaria?
We have medicine for that.
Technology wins wars.
It keeps us safe and warm in winter.
It solves so many problems.
It could solve this problem too, and by this problem I mean the problem of people dying/getting injured in car accidents.
There are some simple technology fixes we could put in place to reduce problems.
One person in this thread mentioned rumble strips on the sides of the roads, and putting them in the median as well.
Another technological solution would be to put concrete barriers in the middle of heavily traveled roads.
You can probably think of some more on your own.
A more complex solution that has also been mentioned in this story is to have cars drive themselves.
It would easily solve the problem of distracted drivers by removing the driver from the situation.
While I think you probably have some good reasons for your anti-technology thoughts, I think it might be more accurate to hate on inappropriately applied technologies or just inappropriately applied solutions in general.
Technology isn't the problem, it is just a tool.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984492</id>
	<title>Re:Simple</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256980320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;You don't need a cell signal to drive distracted. Ever seen someone applying makeup while driving? Eating while driving? Facing the back seat (presumably trying to control children) while driving?<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>Yeah.  I lay on my horn and scare the \_\_\_\_ out of them.  I should probably mention my horn is one of those old truck horns, not today's wimpy "eee eee" horns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; You do n't need a cell signal to drive distracted .
Ever seen someone applying makeup while driving ?
Eating while driving ?
Facing the back seat ( presumably trying to control children ) while driving ? &gt; &gt; &gt; Yeah .
I lay on my horn and scare the \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ out of them .
I should probably mention my horn is one of those old truck horns , not today 's wimpy " eee eee " horns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;You don't need a cell signal to drive distracted.
Ever seen someone applying makeup while driving?
Eating while driving?
Facing the back seat (presumably trying to control children) while driving?&gt;&gt;&gt;Yeah.
I lay on my horn and scare the \_\_\_\_ out of them.
I should probably mention my horn is one of those old truck horns, not today's wimpy "eee eee" horns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982372</id>
	<title>Re:Simple</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1257017460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't need a cell signal to drive distracted.  Ever seen someone applying makeup while driving?  Eating while driving?  Facing the back seat (presumably trying to control children) while driving?</p><p>These behaviors are all dangerous to bystanders, and in any are with decent distracted driving laws they are all illegal; but those laws are almost never enforced, presumably because they aren't the big money-maker that speeding tickets are.</p><p>Also, while you can block radio signals into and out of a car - and indeed there are those who think certain window tinting requirements in CA might inadvertantly have that effect - this will probably only create a market for external antenna kits.</p><p>The only real solution to distracted driving is education.  Drivers need to understand that as common-place as driving has become, that doesn't make it any less necessary to respect "safe control of the vehicle" as the first and over-riding responsiblity of anyone operating a vehicle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need a cell signal to drive distracted .
Ever seen someone applying makeup while driving ?
Eating while driving ?
Facing the back seat ( presumably trying to control children ) while driving ? These behaviors are all dangerous to bystanders , and in any are with decent distracted driving laws they are all illegal ; but those laws are almost never enforced , presumably because they are n't the big money-maker that speeding tickets are.Also , while you can block radio signals into and out of a car - and indeed there are those who think certain window tinting requirements in CA might inadvertantly have that effect - this will probably only create a market for external antenna kits.The only real solution to distracted driving is education .
Drivers need to understand that as common-place as driving has become , that does n't make it any less necessary to respect " safe control of the vehicle " as the first and over-riding responsiblity of anyone operating a vehicle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need a cell signal to drive distracted.
Ever seen someone applying makeup while driving?
Eating while driving?
Facing the back seat (presumably trying to control children) while driving?These behaviors are all dangerous to bystanders, and in any are with decent distracted driving laws they are all illegal; but those laws are almost never enforced, presumably because they aren't the big money-maker that speeding tickets are.Also, while you can block radio signals into and out of a car - and indeed there are those who think certain window tinting requirements in CA might inadvertantly have that effect - this will probably only create a market for external antenna kits.The only real solution to distracted driving is education.
Drivers need to understand that as common-place as driving has become, that doesn't make it any less necessary to respect "safe control of the vehicle" as the first and over-riding responsiblity of anyone operating a vehicle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985230</id>
	<title>Evidence?</title>
	<author>abulafia</author>
	<datestamp>1256982660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>solutions to the growing problem of distracted or inattentive drivers</i>

Is there any evidence that this problem is, in fact, growing?

An article linked from that article said,

<i>New research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that nearly 6,000 people died in vehicle crashes involving a distracted or inattentive driver in 2008, LaHood said, about one-sixth of the 37,000 vehicle deaths reported last year. </i>

But that doesn't tell us what the first derivative is doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>solutions to the growing problem of distracted or inattentive drivers Is there any evidence that this problem is , in fact , growing ?
An article linked from that article said , New research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that nearly 6,000 people died in vehicle crashes involving a distracted or inattentive driver in 2008 , LaHood said , about one-sixth of the 37,000 vehicle deaths reported last year .
But that does n't tell us what the first derivative is doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>solutions to the growing problem of distracted or inattentive drivers

Is there any evidence that this problem is, in fact, growing?
An article linked from that article said,

New research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that nearly 6,000 people died in vehicle crashes involving a distracted or inattentive driver in 2008, LaHood said, about one-sixth of the 37,000 vehicle deaths reported last year.
But that doesn't tell us what the first derivative is doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984502</id>
	<title>Obvious solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256980320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not go for the obvious solution?</p><p>Wire a cell phone blocker to the ignition of each car.  Engine on = no cell phone.  Engine off = cell phone permitted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not go for the obvious solution ? Wire a cell phone blocker to the ignition of each car .
Engine on = no cell phone .
Engine off = cell phone permitted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not go for the obvious solution?Wire a cell phone blocker to the ignition of each car.
Engine on = no cell phone.
Engine off = cell phone permitted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982462</id>
	<title>Re:How about a special license and exam?</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1257017700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mentioned something similar for speed ratings before where you get a classification strip on your fender for your ability to handle your car at speed and even have limitations on lane usage for less than stellar drivers... but it'll never happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mentioned something similar for speed ratings before where you get a classification strip on your fender for your ability to handle your car at speed and even have limitations on lane usage for less than stellar drivers... but it 'll never happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mentioned something similar for speed ratings before where you get a classification strip on your fender for your ability to handle your car at speed and even have limitations on lane usage for less than stellar drivers... but it'll never happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</id>
	<title>A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've asked repeatedly, as politely as I can, for my wife (and kids) to be quiet and not distract me while driving.  But so far my efforts have been completely in vane.  Now if the government can come up with a high tech solution to keep them quiet while I'm driving, then perhaps my tax dollars are not a complete waste of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've asked repeatedly , as politely as I can , for my wife ( and kids ) to be quiet and not distract me while driving .
But so far my efforts have been completely in vane .
Now if the government can come up with a high tech solution to keep them quiet while I 'm driving , then perhaps my tax dollars are not a complete waste of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've asked repeatedly, as politely as I can, for my wife (and kids) to be quiet and not distract me while driving.
But so far my efforts have been completely in vane.
Now if the government can come up with a high tech solution to keep them quiet while I'm driving, then perhaps my tax dollars are not a complete waste of money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983318</id>
	<title>The Problem They're Trying To Solve</title>
	<author>Prototerm</author>
	<datestamp>1257020040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is there's not enough pork going to somebody's congressional district, that's all. Dollars to donuts there's a specific lobbyist (and company) behind it all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is there 's not enough pork going to somebody 's congressional district , that 's all .
Dollars to donuts there 's a specific lobbyist ( and company ) behind it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is there's not enough pork going to somebody's congressional district, that's all.
Dollars to donuts there's a specific lobbyist (and company) behind it all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984276</id>
	<title>The Education is the Cure.</title>
	<author>Maladius</author>
	<datestamp>1256979720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Education about distracted driving IS the cure.  You can do things while driving in a safe manner.  It's just important to know when and how.  There are times when it's fairly safe (as safe as driving ever is) to glance at a text message or at that billboard out the window.  There are other times when your eyes should never leave the road (e.g. High-traffic, high-speed situations)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Education about distracted driving IS the cure .
You can do things while driving in a safe manner .
It 's just important to know when and how .
There are times when it 's fairly safe ( as safe as driving ever is ) to glance at a text message or at that billboard out the window .
There are other times when your eyes should never leave the road ( e.g .
High-traffic , high-speed situations )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Education about distracted driving IS the cure.
You can do things while driving in a safe manner.
It's just important to know when and how.
There are times when it's fairly safe (as safe as driving ever is) to glance at a text message or at that billboard out the window.
There are other times when your eyes should never leave the road (e.g.
High-traffic, high-speed situations)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982326</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the cure</title>
	<author>Spazztastic</author>
	<datestamp>1257017340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You want a high tech cure for distracted driving?   Easy.  <a href="http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.asp" title="darpa.mil">Get rid of the driver.</a> [darpa.mil]</p> </div><p>The argument would be "You're infringing on my rights! It's my right as an American to drive!", even though driving is a privilege. It's just another step towards becoming a nanny state...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want a high tech cure for distracted driving ?
Easy. Get rid of the driver .
[ darpa.mil ] The argument would be " You 're infringing on my rights !
It 's my right as an American to drive !
" , even though driving is a privilege .
It 's just another step towards becoming a nanny state.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want a high tech cure for distracted driving?
Easy.  Get rid of the driver.
[darpa.mil] The argument would be "You're infringing on my rights!
It's my right as an American to drive!
", even though driving is a privilege.
It's just another step towards becoming a nanny state...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983940</id>
	<title>Control the flow of water</title>
	<author>drago177</author>
	<datestamp>1257021780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Water is fluid, soft, and yielding. But water will wear away rock, which is rigid and cannot yield..."  So I say, you can try to manage the flow instead of stopping it altogether.</p><p>I say make a law such that when plugged in to the car port or charger, cellphones are given bluetooth-like functionality (mp3s &amp; calls through the car speakers, etc), while not allowing texting (or a yearly changing list of functions that dont restrict the user *too* much).  I hear the Verizon Droid seems to have the right idea of some kind of "driving mode" vs standard.  With the coming wave of smartphone usage, people will really *want* to charge their phones while driving.  And if a cop or camera see you not charging your phone, you get a costly ticket.  It should change people's behavior like seat belts.  Granted, its much harder to see the offense, so it will not be adopted as quickly, depending on how stiffly the laws are enforced, but it will change a percentage of people's behaviors (I'm thinking maybe 5\%/yr topping off at 80\% when everyone has smartphones).  That percentage of change will save a percentage of lives, which is better than nothing, but at the same time not troubling people too much.</p><p>I, for example, am a habitual phone user in the car.  Even though I know its dangerous, I just can't help myself - the smartphone is too damn useful &amp; fun to use.  I haven't been close to an accident yet, but if I were to get in one, I'd probably change, but a law like this would help push me a little harder.  And if it forces phone &amp; car companies to add cooperative, standards-forming functionality, it will keep me from getting too pissed off to complain to my congressman against it.  And thats exactly what would be required to get any law passed at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Water is fluid , soft , and yielding .
But water will wear away rock , which is rigid and can not yield... " So I say , you can try to manage the flow instead of stopping it altogether.I say make a law such that when plugged in to the car port or charger , cellphones are given bluetooth-like functionality ( mp3s &amp; calls through the car speakers , etc ) , while not allowing texting ( or a yearly changing list of functions that dont restrict the user * too * much ) .
I hear the Verizon Droid seems to have the right idea of some kind of " driving mode " vs standard .
With the coming wave of smartphone usage , people will really * want * to charge their phones while driving .
And if a cop or camera see you not charging your phone , you get a costly ticket .
It should change people 's behavior like seat belts .
Granted , its much harder to see the offense , so it will not be adopted as quickly , depending on how stiffly the laws are enforced , but it will change a percentage of people 's behaviors ( I 'm thinking maybe 5 \ % /yr topping off at 80 \ % when everyone has smartphones ) .
That percentage of change will save a percentage of lives , which is better than nothing , but at the same time not troubling people too much.I , for example , am a habitual phone user in the car .
Even though I know its dangerous , I just ca n't help myself - the smartphone is too damn useful &amp; fun to use .
I have n't been close to an accident yet , but if I were to get in one , I 'd probably change , but a law like this would help push me a little harder .
And if it forces phone &amp; car companies to add cooperative , standards-forming functionality , it will keep me from getting too pissed off to complain to my congressman against it .
And thats exactly what would be required to get any law passed at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Water is fluid, soft, and yielding.
But water will wear away rock, which is rigid and cannot yield..."  So I say, you can try to manage the flow instead of stopping it altogether.I say make a law such that when plugged in to the car port or charger, cellphones are given bluetooth-like functionality (mp3s &amp; calls through the car speakers, etc), while not allowing texting (or a yearly changing list of functions that dont restrict the user *too* much).
I hear the Verizon Droid seems to have the right idea of some kind of "driving mode" vs standard.
With the coming wave of smartphone usage, people will really *want* to charge their phones while driving.
And if a cop or camera see you not charging your phone, you get a costly ticket.
It should change people's behavior like seat belts.
Granted, its much harder to see the offense, so it will not be adopted as quickly, depending on how stiffly the laws are enforced, but it will change a percentage of people's behaviors (I'm thinking maybe 5\%/yr topping off at 80\% when everyone has smartphones).
That percentage of change will save a percentage of lives, which is better than nothing, but at the same time not troubling people too much.I, for example, am a habitual phone user in the car.
Even though I know its dangerous, I just can't help myself - the smartphone is too damn useful &amp; fun to use.
I haven't been close to an accident yet, but if I were to get in one, I'd probably change, but a law like this would help push me a little harder.
And if it forces phone &amp; car companies to add cooperative, standards-forming functionality, it will keep me from getting too pissed off to complain to my congressman against it.
And thats exactly what would be required to get any law passed at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983418</id>
	<title>Re:Force Classes..</title>
	<author>Sir\_Dill</author>
	<datestamp>1257020220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are other benefits as well.<p>
Laws change from time to time and if people had to pass a semi regular class in order to maintain their licenses it would not only be a refresher for the stuff they should be doing anyways, but also an effective avenue to ensure that people are up to date on the current laws which apply to driving.
<br>
Course, that doesn't mean it will stop the accidents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other benefits as well .
Laws change from time to time and if people had to pass a semi regular class in order to maintain their licenses it would not only be a refresher for the stuff they should be doing anyways , but also an effective avenue to ensure that people are up to date on the current laws which apply to driving .
Course , that does n't mean it will stop the accidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other benefits as well.
Laws change from time to time and if people had to pass a semi regular class in order to maintain their licenses it would not only be a refresher for the stuff they should be doing anyways, but also an effective avenue to ensure that people are up to date on the current laws which apply to driving.
Course, that doesn't mean it will stop the accidents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986430</id>
	<title>Re:How about a special license and exam?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1256986320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1.) They hang on to the idea that a cell phone is a luxury and, thus, anyone using one while driving is flaunting theirs</p></div><p>No, they hang onto the idea that using a cell phone is always an optional activity. Doctors on call, where it really is life-or-death, pull over to take a call, you can too.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2.) They ignore how many distractions come from the radio in the car - they would never move to ban radios</p></div><p>The radio doesn't ask you to answer their questions (causing you to focus on something other than driving).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3.) They ignore how many distractions come from passengers/pets - they would never move to ban passengers/pets</p></div><p>Passengers have eyes and tend to shut up when you are in a difficult situation. They also act as another set of eyes on the road sometimes, and take care of tasks that the driver would otherwise have to. So passengers are actually a net plus.</p><p>Pets are a different story, because they aren't as smart as humans. I think some folks would consider instituting a law requiring pets to be crated if there were evidence that they were causing significant numbers of accidents.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4.) They hold on to the idea that if a phone was in the car, it caused the accident, no matter what the actual cause was</p></div><p>Correlation does not equal causation, but there is a strong correlation between drivers actively using the phone and getting into accidents. It's the best evidence you can get for this sort of thing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>5.) To such people, the citing of a couple of personal examples shows what all of humankind is like</p></div><p>No, the citing of personal examples argues that the statistics that numerous studies have found matches up with their understanding of reality.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>6.) They fit into the general pattern of those who want to tell others what to do</p></div><p>I for one want to tell others what they can't do if what they want to do can kill me, and the restriction I want to put on their behavior isn't terrifically onerous. For instance, I think it's reasonable to argue that having laws that attempt to ensure that 16 year olds have some clue how to drive before we let them get behind the wheel and head down the highway (unlicensed teenagers can drive on private land, but not on public roads under most circumstances). They're called laws, some of them exist for a reason, and they're the price you pay for living in a civilized society.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) They hang on to the idea that a cell phone is a luxury and , thus , anyone using one while driving is flaunting theirsNo , they hang onto the idea that using a cell phone is always an optional activity .
Doctors on call , where it really is life-or-death , pull over to take a call , you can too.2 .
) They ignore how many distractions come from the radio in the car - they would never move to ban radiosThe radio does n't ask you to answer their questions ( causing you to focus on something other than driving ) .3 .
) They ignore how many distractions come from passengers/pets - they would never move to ban passengers/petsPassengers have eyes and tend to shut up when you are in a difficult situation .
They also act as another set of eyes on the road sometimes , and take care of tasks that the driver would otherwise have to .
So passengers are actually a net plus.Pets are a different story , because they are n't as smart as humans .
I think some folks would consider instituting a law requiring pets to be crated if there were evidence that they were causing significant numbers of accidents.4 .
) They hold on to the idea that if a phone was in the car , it caused the accident , no matter what the actual cause wasCorrelation does not equal causation , but there is a strong correlation between drivers actively using the phone and getting into accidents .
It 's the best evidence you can get for this sort of thing.5 .
) To such people , the citing of a couple of personal examples shows what all of humankind is likeNo , the citing of personal examples argues that the statistics that numerous studies have found matches up with their understanding of reality.6 .
) They fit into the general pattern of those who want to tell others what to doI for one want to tell others what they ca n't do if what they want to do can kill me , and the restriction I want to put on their behavior is n't terrifically onerous .
For instance , I think it 's reasonable to argue that having laws that attempt to ensure that 16 year olds have some clue how to drive before we let them get behind the wheel and head down the highway ( unlicensed teenagers can drive on private land , but not on public roads under most circumstances ) .
They 're called laws , some of them exist for a reason , and they 're the price you pay for living in a civilized society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
) They hang on to the idea that a cell phone is a luxury and, thus, anyone using one while driving is flaunting theirsNo, they hang onto the idea that using a cell phone is always an optional activity.
Doctors on call, where it really is life-or-death, pull over to take a call, you can too.2.
) They ignore how many distractions come from the radio in the car - they would never move to ban radiosThe radio doesn't ask you to answer their questions (causing you to focus on something other than driving).3.
) They ignore how many distractions come from passengers/pets - they would never move to ban passengers/petsPassengers have eyes and tend to shut up when you are in a difficult situation.
They also act as another set of eyes on the road sometimes, and take care of tasks that the driver would otherwise have to.
So passengers are actually a net plus.Pets are a different story, because they aren't as smart as humans.
I think some folks would consider instituting a law requiring pets to be crated if there were evidence that they were causing significant numbers of accidents.4.
) They hold on to the idea that if a phone was in the car, it caused the accident, no matter what the actual cause wasCorrelation does not equal causation, but there is a strong correlation between drivers actively using the phone and getting into accidents.
It's the best evidence you can get for this sort of thing.5.
) To such people, the citing of a couple of personal examples shows what all of humankind is likeNo, the citing of personal examples argues that the statistics that numerous studies have found matches up with their understanding of reality.6.
) They fit into the general pattern of those who want to tell others what to doI for one want to tell others what they can't do if what they want to do can kill me, and the restriction I want to put on their behavior isn't terrifically onerous.
For instance, I think it's reasonable to argue that having laws that attempt to ensure that 16 year olds have some clue how to drive before we let them get behind the wheel and head down the highway (unlicensed teenagers can drive on private land, but not on public roads under most circumstances).
They're called laws, some of them exist for a reason, and they're the price you pay for living in a civilized society.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983802</id>
	<title>Re:Simple</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1257021360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what happens when you're in an accident in the middle of nowhere, trapped in your car, but can't make a phone call to 911 because the car blocks your signal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what happens when you 're in an accident in the middle of nowhere , trapped in your car , but ca n't make a phone call to 911 because the car blocks your signal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what happens when you're in an accident in the middle of nowhere, trapped in your car, but can't make a phone call to 911 because the car blocks your signal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983246</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1257019860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Things are so shitty right now due to our having outsourced everything offshore and invaded several countries we didn't need to, the lawmakers need to be perceived to be accomplishing something. So why not pass unnecessary laws when there are already laws which cover distracted driving? I.e., failure to maintain control of your vehicle, improper lane changes (failure to check, failure to signal), failure to yield the right of way, "california stops" (failure to come to "complete" stop - never mind that a stop is a stop if your wheels don't cease moving), running red lights, driving too slowly, hindering the flow of traffic, traveling in the breakdown lane, traveling in the passing (far-left) lane, driving left of center, tailgating, and so on and so forth. Because all of those are going unenforced, lawmakers feel the need to pass yet another law because they aren't allowing or requiring the police to do their job, which is enforcing laws already on the books which would solve this problem already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what exactly is the problem they 're trying to solve ?
Things are so shitty right now due to our having outsourced everything offshore and invaded several countries we did n't need to , the lawmakers need to be perceived to be accomplishing something .
So why not pass unnecessary laws when there are already laws which cover distracted driving ?
I.e. , failure to maintain control of your vehicle , improper lane changes ( failure to check , failure to signal ) , failure to yield the right of way , " california stops " ( failure to come to " complete " stop - never mind that a stop is a stop if your wheels do n't cease moving ) , running red lights , driving too slowly , hindering the flow of traffic , traveling in the breakdown lane , traveling in the passing ( far-left ) lane , driving left of center , tailgating , and so on and so forth .
Because all of those are going unenforced , lawmakers feel the need to pass yet another law because they are n't allowing or requiring the police to do their job , which is enforcing laws already on the books which would solve this problem already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?
Things are so shitty right now due to our having outsourced everything offshore and invaded several countries we didn't need to, the lawmakers need to be perceived to be accomplishing something.
So why not pass unnecessary laws when there are already laws which cover distracted driving?
I.e., failure to maintain control of your vehicle, improper lane changes (failure to check, failure to signal), failure to yield the right of way, "california stops" (failure to come to "complete" stop - never mind that a stop is a stop if your wheels don't cease moving), running red lights, driving too slowly, hindering the flow of traffic, traveling in the breakdown lane, traveling in the passing (far-left) lane, driving left of center, tailgating, and so on and so forth.
Because all of those are going unenforced, lawmakers feel the need to pass yet another law because they aren't allowing or requiring the police to do their job, which is enforcing laws already on the books which would solve this problem already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985170</id>
	<title>Re:Steering wheel spike</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1256982480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That won't work.  Driving while distracted is already dangerous.  Making it more dangerous would not change people's attitudes.  The problem is that people are ignoring the dangers.  You could put a bayonet in the middle of the steering wheel and it would not change anything.  People would just get used to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That wo n't work .
Driving while distracted is already dangerous .
Making it more dangerous would not change people 's attitudes .
The problem is that people are ignoring the dangers .
You could put a bayonet in the middle of the steering wheel and it would not change anything .
People would just get used to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That won't work.
Driving while distracted is already dangerous.
Making it more dangerous would not change people's attitudes.
The problem is that people are ignoring the dangers.
You could put a bayonet in the middle of the steering wheel and it would not change anything.
People would just get used to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982964</id>
	<title>Endorsements</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1257019020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not just allow dashtop gadgetry, but only by passing an exam and earning (i.e. buying) a special endorsement on one license? If they charged you a few hundred bucks with every license renewal and made the test difficult enough, that should weed out the teenager/neanderthal crowd.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just allow dashtop gadgetry , but only by passing an exam and earning ( i.e .
buying ) a special endorsement on one license ?
If they charged you a few hundred bucks with every license renewal and made the test difficult enough , that should weed out the teenager/neanderthal crowd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just allow dashtop gadgetry, but only by passing an exam and earning (i.e.
buying) a special endorsement on one license?
If they charged you a few hundred bucks with every license renewal and made the test difficult enough, that should weed out the teenager/neanderthal crowd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985194</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256982480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed; I'd rather be dead than in a wheelchair suffering from massive brain damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed ; I 'd rather be dead than in a wheelchair suffering from massive brain damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed; I'd rather be dead than in a wheelchair suffering from massive brain damage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29987284</id>
	<title>There isn't an issue with distracted driving</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256989680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>6000 accidents that MIGHT have been caused by distracted driving..maybe.</p><p>That is very few, and there is no high tech way to stop it with the sole exception of removing the driver.</p><p>Why don't we just limit cars to 40 MPH?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6000 accidents that MIGHT have been caused by distracted driving..maybe.That is very few , and there is no high tech way to stop it with the sole exception of removing the driver.Why do n't we just limit cars to 40 MPH ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6000 accidents that MIGHT have been caused by distracted driving..maybe.That is very few, and there is no high tech way to stop it with the sole exception of removing the driver.Why don't we just limit cars to 40 MPH?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982344</id>
	<title>audio/video</title>
	<author>parallel\_prankster</author>
	<datestamp>1257017400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about non-stop playing gory video clips of people dying in car crashes? We could throw in some screams as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about non-stop playing gory video clips of people dying in car crashes ?
We could throw in some screams as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about non-stop playing gory video clips of people dying in car crashes?
We could throw in some screams as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982644</id>
	<title>Re:Steering wheel spike</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257018120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>self distract if a task does not require attention.</i> </p><p>Once upon a time, I had to do an 8-hour drive several times a year. The way I kept my attention on the task? Driving about 10mph over the speed limit (going 75 on a 65 highway). This requires constant attention for passing, maintaining a safe distance, signaling, etc. Trying to maintain a decent speed while driving very carefully kept my brain from wandering off. That sadly ended when I got a speeding ticket...fortunately I don't have to drive any more. No time-wasting, money-sucking car for me. Ha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>self distract if a task does not require attention .
Once upon a time , I had to do an 8-hour drive several times a year .
The way I kept my attention on the task ?
Driving about 10mph over the speed limit ( going 75 on a 65 highway ) .
This requires constant attention for passing , maintaining a safe distance , signaling , etc .
Trying to maintain a decent speed while driving very carefully kept my brain from wandering off .
That sadly ended when I got a speeding ticket...fortunately I do n't have to drive any more .
No time-wasting , money-sucking car for me .
Ha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>self distract if a task does not require attention.
Once upon a time, I had to do an 8-hour drive several times a year.
The way I kept my attention on the task?
Driving about 10mph over the speed limit (going 75 on a 65 highway).
This requires constant attention for passing, maintaining a safe distance, signaling, etc.
Trying to maintain a decent speed while driving very carefully kept my brain from wandering off.
That sadly ended when I got a speeding ticket...fortunately I don't have to drive any more.
No time-wasting, money-sucking car for me.
Ha.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982710</id>
	<title>Look into video games</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1257018300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a copy of any "Rachet &amp; Clank" game, then implement many of those ideas. They may not actually help, but it would be entertaining for the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a copy of any " Rachet &amp; Clank " game , then implement many of those ideas .
They may not actually help , but it would be entertaining for the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a copy of any "Rachet &amp; Clank" game, then implement many of those ideas.
They may not actually help, but it would be entertaining for the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.30007252</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Shawndeisi</author>
	<datestamp>1257533100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Nonetheless, highway deaths are down in the USA"<br>
<br>
The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration has upped their standards, so up yours!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Nonetheless , highway deaths are down in the USA " The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration has upped their standards , so up yours !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Nonetheless, highway deaths are down in the USA"

The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration has upped their standards, so up yours!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988988</id>
	<title>Re:User education?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that and they've had laws requiring the use of headsets when using a cell phone while driving in germany for quite some time, and the traffic is so horrible that any sane driver would take the risk of being distracted very seriously or be eliminated fairly quickly.  Have you ever driven in a german city?  It's not stop and go like here, it's slam on the brakes and go like hell, with no warning in between.  Plus, I know it's a bit of a stereotype but germans tend to follow rules much more than americans do anyway.  Americans tend to take the view that things are only illegal if there is a cop next to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that and they 've had laws requiring the use of headsets when using a cell phone while driving in germany for quite some time , and the traffic is so horrible that any sane driver would take the risk of being distracted very seriously or be eliminated fairly quickly .
Have you ever driven in a german city ?
It 's not stop and go like here , it 's slam on the brakes and go like hell , with no warning in between .
Plus , I know it 's a bit of a stereotype but germans tend to follow rules much more than americans do anyway .
Americans tend to take the view that things are only illegal if there is a cop next to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that and they've had laws requiring the use of headsets when using a cell phone while driving in germany for quite some time, and the traffic is so horrible that any sane driver would take the risk of being distracted very seriously or be eliminated fairly quickly.
Have you ever driven in a german city?
It's not stop and go like here, it's slam on the brakes and go like hell, with no warning in between.
Plus, I know it's a bit of a stereotype but germans tend to follow rules much more than americans do anyway.
Americans tend to take the view that things are only illegal if there is a cop next to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982734</id>
	<title>Cell phone jammers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257018360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I vote for mandatory in-car cell phone jammers that activate while the car is moving, but not while it is stopped.  Need to make a call?  Pull over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I vote for mandatory in-car cell phone jammers that activate while the car is moving , but not while it is stopped .
Need to make a call ?
Pull over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vote for mandatory in-car cell phone jammers that activate while the car is moving, but not while it is stopped.
Need to make a call?
Pull over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982612</id>
	<title>Good luck with that "technological solution"</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1257018060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A person can be distracted by <i>anything</i>.</p><p>I'll admit that once or twice I've missed a turn because I was thinking too intently about something else. Sometimes I've even pulled into my driveway and all of a sudden realized that I didn't remember the last few miles and wondering if I ran any stop lights.</p><p>I'm pretty sure that if something had happened during the trip that required a reaction (like a red light) that my awareness would have shifted back but you never know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A person can be distracted by anything.I 'll admit that once or twice I 've missed a turn because I was thinking too intently about something else .
Sometimes I 've even pulled into my driveway and all of a sudden realized that I did n't remember the last few miles and wondering if I ran any stop lights.I 'm pretty sure that if something had happened during the trip that required a reaction ( like a red light ) that my awareness would have shifted back but you never know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A person can be distracted by anything.I'll admit that once or twice I've missed a turn because I was thinking too intently about something else.
Sometimes I've even pulled into my driveway and all of a sudden realized that I didn't remember the last few miles and wondering if I ran any stop lights.I'm pretty sure that if something had happened during the trip that required a reaction (like a red light) that my awareness would have shifted back but you never know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982592</id>
	<title>Different types of distractions</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1257018000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I've said before, there are multiple kinds of distractions while driving.</p><p>
There are eye distractions (tuning a radio), hand distractions (holding food), and concentration distractions (yelling at someone over a speaker phone, looking at a cop who pulled someone else over,etc)</p><p>
A lot of regulations seem to be randomly concentrating on 'hand distractions' for no purpose I can make out. A better solution to those would be to provide drivers a place where they can safely put things, so only <b>one</b> hand is busy, instead of them attempting to juggle things. (And drivers can drive fine with one hand.) People need to set down their drink to eat their burrito.</p><p>
Likewise, eye distractions can be reduced by more voice feedback in cars and more work on making controls people can operate without looking at them.</p><p>
The biggest cause of accidents in cars, by far, is concentration distraction, where people <b>could</b> be concentrating on the road, there is absolutely nothing more important they're paying attention to. (The biggest reason is 'sleepy', in fact.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I 've said before , there are multiple kinds of distractions while driving .
There are eye distractions ( tuning a radio ) , hand distractions ( holding food ) , and concentration distractions ( yelling at someone over a speaker phone , looking at a cop who pulled someone else over,etc ) A lot of regulations seem to be randomly concentrating on 'hand distractions ' for no purpose I can make out .
A better solution to those would be to provide drivers a place where they can safely put things , so only one hand is busy , instead of them attempting to juggle things .
( And drivers can drive fine with one hand .
) People need to set down their drink to eat their burrito .
Likewise , eye distractions can be reduced by more voice feedback in cars and more work on making controls people can operate without looking at them .
The biggest cause of accidents in cars , by far , is concentration distraction , where people could be concentrating on the road , there is absolutely nothing more important they 're paying attention to .
( The biggest reason is 'sleepy ' , in fact .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I've said before, there are multiple kinds of distractions while driving.
There are eye distractions (tuning a radio), hand distractions (holding food), and concentration distractions (yelling at someone over a speaker phone, looking at a cop who pulled someone else over,etc)
A lot of regulations seem to be randomly concentrating on 'hand distractions' for no purpose I can make out.
A better solution to those would be to provide drivers a place where they can safely put things, so only one hand is busy, instead of them attempting to juggle things.
(And drivers can drive fine with one hand.
) People need to set down their drink to eat their burrito.
Likewise, eye distractions can be reduced by more voice feedback in cars and more work on making controls people can operate without looking at them.
The biggest cause of accidents in cars, by far, is concentration distraction, where people could be concentrating on the road, there is absolutely nothing more important they're paying attention to.
(The biggest reason is 'sleepy', in fact.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982678</id>
	<title>Re:Steering wheel spike</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1257018180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Car accidents shold put the fear of death into people too but that doesn't stop them from doing stupid things while driving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Car accidents shold put the fear of death into people too but that does n't stop them from doing stupid things while driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Car accidents shold put the fear of death into people too but that doesn't stop them from doing stupid things while driving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982066</id>
	<title>Here's the cure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You want a high tech cure for distracted driving?   Easy.  <a href="http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.asp" title="darpa.mil">Get rid of the driver.</a> [darpa.mil]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want a high tech cure for distracted driving ?
Easy. Get rid of the driver .
[ darpa.mil ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want a high tech cure for distracted driving?
Easy.  Get rid of the driver.
[darpa.mil]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986598</id>
	<title>Re:User education?</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1256986920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Technology does not create policy, it follows it.</p></div></blockquote><p>So you're saying that email should have been invented AFTER the CAN-SPAM act?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technology does not create policy , it follows it.So you 're saying that email should have been invented AFTER the CAN-SPAM act ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technology does not create policy, it follows it.So you're saying that email should have been invented AFTER the CAN-SPAM act?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.30002336</id>
	<title>Re:User education?</title>
	<author>pullin2</author>
	<datestamp>1257432120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anecdotal data regarding training and expected skill.

My teenager is licensed to drive our car (Corolla) and our plane (<a href="http://www.arising.com.au/aviation/piperArrow.jpg" title="arising.com.au" rel="nofollow">Arrow</a> [arising.com.au]).  It costs me considerably LESS to insure him in the airplane than in the car.  I believe the difference lies in the training required for the respective vehicles.  Additionally, the deductible for the plane is only $100 (USD).  For the car it is $1000.  The downside is, requiring this high level of real training for a car would empty the roads.   Wait, did I say "downside"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anecdotal data regarding training and expected skill .
My teenager is licensed to drive our car ( Corolla ) and our plane ( Arrow [ arising.com.au ] ) .
It costs me considerably LESS to insure him in the airplane than in the car .
I believe the difference lies in the training required for the respective vehicles .
Additionally , the deductible for the plane is only $ 100 ( USD ) .
For the car it is $ 1000 .
The downside is , requiring this high level of real training for a car would empty the roads .
Wait , did I say " downside " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anecdotal data regarding training and expected skill.
My teenager is licensed to drive our car (Corolla) and our plane (Arrow [arising.com.au]).
It costs me considerably LESS to insure him in the airplane than in the car.
I believe the difference lies in the training required for the respective vehicles.
Additionally, the deductible for the plane is only $100 (USD).
For the car it is $1000.
The downside is, requiring this high level of real training for a car would empty the roads.
Wait, did I say "downside"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982556</id>
	<title>By Clicking On This Link, You Agree To Pay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kilgore Trout, resident of Pindostan, a single payment of<br>Euro 100,000,000.00 for the cure for distracted driving:</p><p>3.00/liter  gasoline.</p><p>Yours In Pindostan,<br>Kilgore T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kilgore Trout , resident of Pindostan , a single payment ofEuro 100,000,000.00 for the cure for distracted driving : 3.00/liter gasoline.Yours In Pindostan,Kilgore T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kilgore Trout, resident of Pindostan, a single payment ofEuro 100,000,000.00 for the cure for distracted driving:3.00/liter  gasoline.Yours In Pindostan,Kilgore T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983956</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1257021840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They already have a solution for the "noisy wife" problem... it's called a "trunk" (or "boot" for those of you that drive on the wrong side of the road).</htmltext>
<tokenext>They already have a solution for the " noisy wife " problem... it 's called a " trunk " ( or " boot " for those of you that drive on the wrong side of the road ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already have a solution for the "noisy wife" problem... it's called a "trunk" (or "boot" for those of you that drive on the wrong side of the road).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29994982</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257437400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?</p></div><p>Another quick check shows that ~40,000 Americans will still lose their lives on the road over the next year. How about we solve that problem?<br>If 40K is too metric a number for your American self, I can convert that into 9/11 World Trade Centers if you'd like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what exactly is the problem they 're trying to solve ? Another quick check shows that ~ 40,000 Americans will still lose their lives on the road over the next year .
How about we solve that problem ? If 40K is too metric a number for your American self , I can convert that into 9/11 World Trade Centers if you 'd like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?Another quick check shows that ~40,000 Americans will still lose their lives on the road over the next year.
How about we solve that problem?If 40K is too metric a number for your American self, I can convert that into 9/11 World Trade Centers if you'd like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29987900</id>
	<title>crippled ham radio</title>
	<author>speedlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1256992020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The FCC and DOT ban TV on a dashboard.  OK, so the screen in my car in europe will show TV when the car is off, but not here.  My Icom 7000 ham radio had the potential to receive TV but it was crippled to avoid this hazard, as if the two by three inch screen was a clear danger.

Now that analog TV is dead, it's all moot.

Meanwhile, today, I saw the usual sport-ute drivers in the left lane at 75 mph oblivious on the cell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC and DOT ban TV on a dashboard .
OK , so the screen in my car in europe will show TV when the car is off , but not here .
My Icom 7000 ham radio had the potential to receive TV but it was crippled to avoid this hazard , as if the two by three inch screen was a clear danger .
Now that analog TV is dead , it 's all moot .
Meanwhile , today , I saw the usual sport-ute drivers in the left lane at 75 mph oblivious on the cell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC and DOT ban TV on a dashboard.
OK, so the screen in my car in europe will show TV when the car is off, but not here.
My Icom 7000 ham radio had the potential to receive TV but it was crippled to avoid this hazard, as if the two by three inch screen was a clear danger.
Now that analog TV is dead, it's all moot.
Meanwhile, today, I saw the usual sport-ute drivers in the left lane at 75 mph oblivious on the cell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982312</id>
	<title>There is a High-tech Cure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is already a high-tech cure.  They're called buses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is already a high-tech cure .
They 're called buses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is already a high-tech cure.
They're called buses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982682</id>
	<title>Re:How about a special license and exam?</title>
	<author>silanea</author>
	<datestamp>1257018180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are people who have not yet been killed in a car crash.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are people who have not yet been killed in a car crash.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are people who have not yet been killed in a car crash.Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984180</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the cure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257022560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...ability to drive safely..." being the key phrase here. Maybe some people can talk on a cell and drive without a problem, but there are far, far too many people who can't.</p><p>Driving should be considered a privilege, and I think penalties should be tougher for gross negligence.  I don't think it's going too far for a person's license to be suspended if they injure someone while reading/texting/doing make up/calling someone because they've clearly demonstrated they are not, in fact, capable of driving safely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...ability to drive safely... " being the key phrase here .
Maybe some people can talk on a cell and drive without a problem , but there are far , far too many people who ca n't.Driving should be considered a privilege , and I think penalties should be tougher for gross negligence .
I do n't think it 's going too far for a person 's license to be suspended if they injure someone while reading/texting/doing make up/calling someone because they 've clearly demonstrated they are not , in fact , capable of driving safely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...ability to drive safely..." being the key phrase here.
Maybe some people can talk on a cell and drive without a problem, but there are far, far too many people who can't.Driving should be considered a privilege, and I think penalties should be tougher for gross negligence.
I don't think it's going too far for a person's license to be suspended if they injure someone while reading/texting/doing make up/calling someone because they've clearly demonstrated they are not, in fact, capable of driving safely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982798</id>
	<title>some high-tech, some not so much so</title>
	<author>DriveDog</author>
	<datestamp>1257018540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>High-tech, OK. How about the device that beams sound directly to someone's head. Then I can yell at the person yapping when they should be driving. Perhaps the millimetre-wave beam that heats skin to uncomfortable levels (does that work through rear window glass?). That should wake them up. Or just a plain old cell-phone-frequency jammer. Their calls keep dropping, so just maybe they'll give up. Nah... never mind that one.
</p><p>
Not-so-high-tech... a fire engine or locomotive horn mounted on my front bumper, or a remote-control paintball marker to mark their car, and we all understand that fuchsia splats mark those who occupy the driver's seat but engage in other activities.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>High-tech , OK. How about the device that beams sound directly to someone 's head .
Then I can yell at the person yapping when they should be driving .
Perhaps the millimetre-wave beam that heats skin to uncomfortable levels ( does that work through rear window glass ? ) .
That should wake them up .
Or just a plain old cell-phone-frequency jammer .
Their calls keep dropping , so just maybe they 'll give up .
Nah... never mind that one .
Not-so-high-tech... a fire engine or locomotive horn mounted on my front bumper , or a remote-control paintball marker to mark their car , and we all understand that fuchsia splats mark those who occupy the driver 's seat but engage in other activities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>High-tech, OK. How about the device that beams sound directly to someone's head.
Then I can yell at the person yapping when they should be driving.
Perhaps the millimetre-wave beam that heats skin to uncomfortable levels (does that work through rear window glass?).
That should wake them up.
Or just a plain old cell-phone-frequency jammer.
Their calls keep dropping, so just maybe they'll give up.
Nah... never mind that one.
Not-so-high-tech... a fire engine or locomotive horn mounted on my front bumper, or a remote-control paintball marker to mark their car, and we all understand that fuchsia splats mark those who occupy the driver's seat but engage in other activities.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982692</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the cure</title>
	<author>Fulcrum of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1257018240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Driving is a privilege? If that were true, the state could take your license on a whim. It's closer to a right - anyone who demonstrates the ability to drive safely is allowed to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Driving is a privilege ?
If that were true , the state could take your license on a whim .
It 's closer to a right - anyone who demonstrates the ability to drive safely is allowed to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Driving is a privilege?
If that were true, the state could take your license on a whim.
It's closer to a right - anyone who demonstrates the ability to drive safely is allowed to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983812</id>
	<title>Require devices to have ability to be blocked</title>
	<author>Talahaski</author>
	<datestamp>1257021360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with the solution to remove the driver, the car should drive itself.

In the meantime the FCC should require all communication devices have a method to block usage within a small radius with the exception of 911 calls.  Then cars (front seat only), schools (Kids spend more time texting during class than they do paying attention), federal buildings, and other locations can essentially disable the ability to use any communication device.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the solution to remove the driver , the car should drive itself .
In the meantime the FCC should require all communication devices have a method to block usage within a small radius with the exception of 911 calls .
Then cars ( front seat only ) , schools ( Kids spend more time texting during class than they do paying attention ) , federal buildings , and other locations can essentially disable the ability to use any communication device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the solution to remove the driver, the car should drive itself.
In the meantime the FCC should require all communication devices have a method to block usage within a small radius with the exception of 911 calls.
Then cars (front seat only), schools (Kids spend more time texting during class than they do paying attention), federal buildings, and other locations can essentially disable the ability to use any communication device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29997404</id>
	<title>Re:How about a special license and exam?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257449220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This logic also applies to "I can drive, really I can".</p><p>I want you off the road.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This logic also applies to " I can drive , really I can " .I want you off the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This logic also applies to "I can drive, really I can".I want you off the road.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982514</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What worked really well for me was an accident occurring just in front of me when my son was in the car - minor, the clown in front wasn't paying attention AND was driving too close to the van (big!) in front of him, and whacked the van when traffic slowed. I pointed out to the ankle-biter that that's what happens when you don't pay attention, and no, I wouldn't look at his school papers until we got home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What worked really well for me was an accident occurring just in front of me when my son was in the car - minor , the clown in front was n't paying attention AND was driving too close to the van ( big !
) in front of him , and whacked the van when traffic slowed .
I pointed out to the ankle-biter that that 's what happens when you do n't pay attention , and no , I would n't look at his school papers until we got home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What worked really well for me was an accident occurring just in front of me when my son was in the car - minor, the clown in front wasn't paying attention AND was driving too close to the van (big!
) in front of him, and whacked the van when traffic slowed.
I pointed out to the ankle-biter that that's what happens when you don't pay attention, and no, I wouldn't look at his school papers until we got home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982570</id>
	<title>Re:How about a special license and exam?</title>
	<author>Zumbs</author>
	<datestamp>1257017940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those people may exist, but the vast, vast majority of people cannot drive safely while they are on the phone (much less when texting). It is a simple matter of focus. If you focus on your conversation, you do not focus on driving, which reduces your response time when an accident is brewing. If you focus on driving, you will miss most of the conversation, which sort of removes the point of having the conversation.</p><p>The worst part of this is that many people *think* they can drive safely while being on the phone (or drunk, even), because "it is so easy", "accidents are something that happens to other people", or some similar braindead argument. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those people may exist , but the vast , vast majority of people can not drive safely while they are on the phone ( much less when texting ) .
It is a simple matter of focus .
If you focus on your conversation , you do not focus on driving , which reduces your response time when an accident is brewing .
If you focus on driving , you will miss most of the conversation , which sort of removes the point of having the conversation.The worst part of this is that many people * think * they can drive safely while being on the phone ( or drunk , even ) , because " it is so easy " , " accidents are something that happens to other people " , or some similar braindead argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those people may exist, but the vast, vast majority of people cannot drive safely while they are on the phone (much less when texting).
It is a simple matter of focus.
If you focus on your conversation, you do not focus on driving, which reduces your response time when an accident is brewing.
If you focus on driving, you will miss most of the conversation, which sort of removes the point of having the conversation.The worst part of this is that many people *think* they can drive safely while being on the phone (or drunk, even), because "it is so easy", "accidents are something that happens to other people", or some similar braindead argument. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446</id>
	<title>Why bother?</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1257017640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping records (1.37 per 100,000,000 miles traveled {0.85 per 100,000,000 km traveled, for you SI types}).
</p><p>So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?
</p><p>It's not people dying in accidents due to texting, since they're dying in accidents more rarely since texting became available.
</p><p>And no, I don't think the one caused the other.
</p><p>Nonetheless, highway deaths are down in the USA - I don't see a real need for a high-tech (or any other kind of) solution to the problem of people driving with distractions....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping records ( 1.37 per 100,000,000 miles traveled { 0.85 per 100,000,000 km traveled , for you SI types } ) .
So , what exactly is the problem they 're trying to solve ?
It 's not people dying in accidents due to texting , since they 're dying in accidents more rarely since texting became available .
And no , I do n't think the one caused the other .
Nonetheless , highway deaths are down in the USA - I do n't see a real need for a high-tech ( or any other kind of ) solution to the problem of people driving with distractions... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping records (1.37 per 100,000,000 miles traveled {0.85 per 100,000,000 km traveled, for you SI types}).
So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?
It's not people dying in accidents due to texting, since they're dying in accidents more rarely since texting became available.
And no, I don't think the one caused the other.
Nonetheless, highway deaths are down in the USA - I don't see a real need for a high-tech (or any other kind of) solution to the problem of people driving with distractions....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985106</id>
	<title>A statistically insignificant number...</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1256982300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it that a statistically insignificant number of people with a good sob story can change legislative policy?<br>
<br>
Do we really need another law for that?  I'm sorry, but I grew up at a time before seat belts when we used to put sleeping bags in the back of cars during long car trips and go to sleep in the back while mom and dad drove us to our destination.  If you were to do that now the parents would be hauled off to jail for negligence.<br>
<br>
I hate this one bad apple mentality.  There are 310 million people and counting in the US; one persons daughter gets killed by a repeat offender and goes on a moral crusade and we now have 3 strike laws.  You get busted for pot 3 times and you're in jail for 30 years.  What kind of messed up society do we live in?<br>
<br>
I'm sorry that you can see idiots using their cell phones so they become a scapegoat for all bad drivers.  No matter what solution they come up with there will always be automobile accidents.  They are part of life.  It really sucks that a few thousand people can ruin it for millions of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that a statistically insignificant number of people with a good sob story can change legislative policy ?
Do we really need another law for that ?
I 'm sorry , but I grew up at a time before seat belts when we used to put sleeping bags in the back of cars during long car trips and go to sleep in the back while mom and dad drove us to our destination .
If you were to do that now the parents would be hauled off to jail for negligence .
I hate this one bad apple mentality .
There are 310 million people and counting in the US ; one persons daughter gets killed by a repeat offender and goes on a moral crusade and we now have 3 strike laws .
You get busted for pot 3 times and you 're in jail for 30 years .
What kind of messed up society do we live in ?
I 'm sorry that you can see idiots using their cell phones so they become a scapegoat for all bad drivers .
No matter what solution they come up with there will always be automobile accidents .
They are part of life .
It really sucks that a few thousand people can ruin it for millions of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that a statistically insignificant number of people with a good sob story can change legislative policy?
Do we really need another law for that?
I'm sorry, but I grew up at a time before seat belts when we used to put sleeping bags in the back of cars during long car trips and go to sleep in the back while mom and dad drove us to our destination.
If you were to do that now the parents would be hauled off to jail for negligence.
I hate this one bad apple mentality.
There are 310 million people and counting in the US; one persons daughter gets killed by a repeat offender and goes on a moral crusade and we now have 3 strike laws.
You get busted for pot 3 times and you're in jail for 30 years.
What kind of messed up society do we live in?
I'm sorry that you can see idiots using their cell phones so they become a scapegoat for all bad drivers.
No matter what solution they come up with there will always be automobile accidents.
They are part of life.
It really sucks that a few thousand people can ruin it for millions of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983582</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1257020760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm for a much more straight forward solution across the board:  ACCOUTNABILITY.</p><p>There are accidents caused by simple mistakes any driver could potentially make.  Driving a bit too fast in the rain, reacting to another idiot's move, cutting someone off accidentally, running over a small animal, or any number of vehicular failures; these should all be subject to existing rules.</p><p>However, when it can be shown that neglect, or willful distraction (texting, shaving, putting on makeup, fumbing under the seat to find something, etc, leads directly to an accident, then instead of a ticket and simple fine, there should be CRIMINAL action.  Severe, life changing penalties potentially including a minimum 30 day imprisonment, heavy fins and leans on property, and punishments up to those on par with charges for vehicular manslaughter if a death or mernanat injury results or for repeat offenders.</p><p>Drunk driving carries sever penalties.  Not eactly life changing in most states for firs offences, but severe enough to get notice.  If texting while driving, and other grossly negligent activityies carried similar penalties, this would stop quick.</p><p>To make this easier:<br>1) Cell phones must be in a dock or cradle and used exclusively hands free.  A driver should never have view of a device while in motion except for a GPS.<br>2) Provide a simple system where passengers in other cars can take photos of drivers violating distraction laws and allow their instant submission to cops so that a vehicle can be dispatched to confirm the activity and arrest the driver (no different than calling 911 to report a suspected drunk driver, except it would include photo or video evidence too).</p><p>I don't want some system embedded in every car, at my own cost, to watch me.  That's the responsibility of law enforcement and good samaritains.  Especially if there is any potential for this technology to be abused for snooping by government or hackers then its a REALLY bad idea.  I want a simple system where drives don't do things because the FEAR THE PENALTY, and I do not want people against such a system because they fear being spied on by big brother.</p><p>The same applies to speeding.  Go on, speed.  If we feel it;s excessive, we'll give you a warning and delay for 10-15 minutes while we pour over your driver record and validate your insurace (and notify them in case your speeding is habitual and they'd like to increase your rates slightly for it).  Still, no fine or outright penalty unless you actually cause an ACCIDENT speeding, in which case the fine should be very severe...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm for a much more straight forward solution across the board : ACCOUTNABILITY.There are accidents caused by simple mistakes any driver could potentially make .
Driving a bit too fast in the rain , reacting to another idiot 's move , cutting someone off accidentally , running over a small animal , or any number of vehicular failures ; these should all be subject to existing rules.However , when it can be shown that neglect , or willful distraction ( texting , shaving , putting on makeup , fumbing under the seat to find something , etc , leads directly to an accident , then instead of a ticket and simple fine , there should be CRIMINAL action .
Severe , life changing penalties potentially including a minimum 30 day imprisonment , heavy fins and leans on property , and punishments up to those on par with charges for vehicular manslaughter if a death or mernanat injury results or for repeat offenders.Drunk driving carries sever penalties .
Not eactly life changing in most states for firs offences , but severe enough to get notice .
If texting while driving , and other grossly negligent activityies carried similar penalties , this would stop quick.To make this easier : 1 ) Cell phones must be in a dock or cradle and used exclusively hands free .
A driver should never have view of a device while in motion except for a GPS.2 ) Provide a simple system where passengers in other cars can take photos of drivers violating distraction laws and allow their instant submission to cops so that a vehicle can be dispatched to confirm the activity and arrest the driver ( no different than calling 911 to report a suspected drunk driver , except it would include photo or video evidence too ) .I do n't want some system embedded in every car , at my own cost , to watch me .
That 's the responsibility of law enforcement and good samaritains .
Especially if there is any potential for this technology to be abused for snooping by government or hackers then its a REALLY bad idea .
I want a simple system where drives do n't do things because the FEAR THE PENALTY , and I do not want people against such a system because they fear being spied on by big brother.The same applies to speeding .
Go on , speed .
If we feel it ; s excessive , we 'll give you a warning and delay for 10-15 minutes while we pour over your driver record and validate your insurace ( and notify them in case your speeding is habitual and they 'd like to increase your rates slightly for it ) .
Still , no fine or outright penalty unless you actually cause an ACCIDENT speeding , in which case the fine should be very severe.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm for a much more straight forward solution across the board:  ACCOUTNABILITY.There are accidents caused by simple mistakes any driver could potentially make.
Driving a bit too fast in the rain, reacting to another idiot's move, cutting someone off accidentally, running over a small animal, or any number of vehicular failures; these should all be subject to existing rules.However, when it can be shown that neglect, or willful distraction (texting, shaving, putting on makeup, fumbing under the seat to find something, etc, leads directly to an accident, then instead of a ticket and simple fine, there should be CRIMINAL action.
Severe, life changing penalties potentially including a minimum 30 day imprisonment, heavy fins and leans on property, and punishments up to those on par with charges for vehicular manslaughter if a death or mernanat injury results or for repeat offenders.Drunk driving carries sever penalties.
Not eactly life changing in most states for firs offences, but severe enough to get notice.
If texting while driving, and other grossly negligent activityies carried similar penalties, this would stop quick.To make this easier:1) Cell phones must be in a dock or cradle and used exclusively hands free.
A driver should never have view of a device while in motion except for a GPS.2) Provide a simple system where passengers in other cars can take photos of drivers violating distraction laws and allow their instant submission to cops so that a vehicle can be dispatched to confirm the activity and arrest the driver (no different than calling 911 to report a suspected drunk driver, except it would include photo or video evidence too).I don't want some system embedded in every car, at my own cost, to watch me.
That's the responsibility of law enforcement and good samaritains.
Especially if there is any potential for this technology to be abused for snooping by government or hackers then its a REALLY bad idea.
I want a simple system where drives don't do things because the FEAR THE PENALTY, and I do not want people against such a system because they fear being spied on by big brother.The same applies to speeding.
Go on, speed.
If we feel it;s excessive, we'll give you a warning and delay for 10-15 minutes while we pour over your driver record and validate your insurace (and notify them in case your speeding is habitual and they'd like to increase your rates slightly for it).
Still, no fine or outright penalty unless you actually cause an ACCIDENT speeding, in which case the fine should be very severe...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983074</id>
	<title>Re:Is it even necessary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257019380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think if you take a reductionist view of accidents, you could say that nearly EVERY accident has been caused by distracted driving. the problem with driving drunk? it reduces your ability to PAY ATTENTION and REACT. the problem with speeding? you're going faster than your ability to PAY ATTENTION and REACT.</p><p>the answer to all accidents is PAY ATTENTION and the cause of all accidents is the failure, in one way or another, of doing so</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think if you take a reductionist view of accidents , you could say that nearly EVERY accident has been caused by distracted driving .
the problem with driving drunk ?
it reduces your ability to PAY ATTENTION and REACT .
the problem with speeding ?
you 're going faster than your ability to PAY ATTENTION and REACT.the answer to all accidents is PAY ATTENTION and the cause of all accidents is the failure , in one way or another , of doing so</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think if you take a reductionist view of accidents, you could say that nearly EVERY accident has been caused by distracted driving.
the problem with driving drunk?
it reduces your ability to PAY ATTENTION and REACT.
the problem with speeding?
you're going faster than your ability to PAY ATTENTION and REACT.the answer to all accidents is PAY ATTENTION and the cause of all accidents is the failure, in one way or another, of doing so</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983742</id>
	<title>Re:Steering wheel spike</title>
	<author>pileated</author>
	<datestamp>1257021180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep the answer is a threat, not another safeguard. Couldn't be simpler. Philadelphia had the good sense, finally, to make the use of a cell phone on almost any vehicle illegal just the other day.</p><p>But this is all obvious and has been obvious for years. The only reason that nothing was done has to be the lobbyists for the phone industry, and politicians who love their own cell phones, and have caved in to the lobbyists.</p><p>I know this sounds like the typical crap you read in comments: it's all a conspiracy by so and so. But in this case I just can't see it any other way. I wish this weren't true but I think it is. I can't think of anything in recent memory that has made me more cynical about government and it's easy co-option by business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep the answer is a threat , not another safeguard .
Could n't be simpler .
Philadelphia had the good sense , finally , to make the use of a cell phone on almost any vehicle illegal just the other day.But this is all obvious and has been obvious for years .
The only reason that nothing was done has to be the lobbyists for the phone industry , and politicians who love their own cell phones , and have caved in to the lobbyists.I know this sounds like the typical crap you read in comments : it 's all a conspiracy by so and so .
But in this case I just ca n't see it any other way .
I wish this were n't true but I think it is .
I ca n't think of anything in recent memory that has made me more cynical about government and it 's easy co-option by business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep the answer is a threat, not another safeguard.
Couldn't be simpler.
Philadelphia had the good sense, finally, to make the use of a cell phone on almost any vehicle illegal just the other day.But this is all obvious and has been obvious for years.
The only reason that nothing was done has to be the lobbyists for the phone industry, and politicians who love their own cell phones, and have caved in to the lobbyists.I know this sounds like the typical crap you read in comments: it's all a conspiracy by so and so.
But in this case I just can't see it any other way.
I wish this weren't true but I think it is.
I can't think of anything in recent memory that has made me more cynical about government and it's easy co-option by business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982456</id>
	<title>Re:Steering wheel spike</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The threat of death is already present for drivers. People don't consider the worst possible consequences, they think about how likely they are to happen. It's unlikely to happen, so the consequences are meaningless. If hitting a car head on at 100mph would cause $200 worth of damage and there was a 50\% chance of it happening, people would slow down. If it means 4 people die and the driver goes to prison but there's a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.001\% chance of it happening, they won't.

<br> <br>And blaming the safety features is just silly. Any fool can press the gas pedal while steering with the same knee and do whatever they want with their hands, no matter how old the car is. And they will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The threat of death is already present for drivers .
People do n't consider the worst possible consequences , they think about how likely they are to happen .
It 's unlikely to happen , so the consequences are meaningless .
If hitting a car head on at 100mph would cause $ 200 worth of damage and there was a 50 \ % chance of it happening , people would slow down .
If it means 4 people die and the driver goes to prison but there 's a .001 \ % chance of it happening , they wo n't .
And blaming the safety features is just silly .
Any fool can press the gas pedal while steering with the same knee and do whatever they want with their hands , no matter how old the car is .
And they will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The threat of death is already present for drivers.
People don't consider the worst possible consequences, they think about how likely they are to happen.
It's unlikely to happen, so the consequences are meaningless.
If hitting a car head on at 100mph would cause $200 worth of damage and there was a 50\% chance of it happening, people would slow down.
If it means 4 people die and the driver goes to prison but there's a .001\% chance of it happening, they won't.
And blaming the safety features is just silly.
Any fool can press the gas pedal while steering with the same knee and do whatever they want with their hands, no matter how old the car is.
And they will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29992168</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257413280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a government approved solution:  PARENTING.</p><p>It is also approved by the Non-Stupid Parents Association of America (NSPAA).</p><p>If you have to ask your kids anything, you are a bad parent.</p><p>Expecting the government to fix your inadequacies...  makes you a moron, too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a government approved solution : PARENTING.It is also approved by the Non-Stupid Parents Association of America ( NSPAA ) .If you have to ask your kids anything , you are a bad parent.Expecting the government to fix your inadequacies... makes you a moron , too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a government approved solution:  PARENTING.It is also approved by the Non-Stupid Parents Association of America (NSPAA).If you have to ask your kids anything, you are a bad parent.Expecting the government to fix your inadequacies...  makes you a moron, too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29995400</id>
	<title>Obvious tech solution...</title>
	<author>SaberCat</author>
	<datestamp>1257439440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The obvious solution is to add a motion detection circuit to these devices. When they move faster than, say five mph, they turn off or go blank until their motion drops below the threshold. Detecting motion could be done in several ways: (1)doppler shift of the tower signals, (2)triangulation shift of the phone location, (3) GPS location shift, etc. This is a no-brainer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious solution is to add a motion detection circuit to these devices .
When they move faster than , say five mph , they turn off or go blank until their motion drops below the threshold .
Detecting motion could be done in several ways : ( 1 ) doppler shift of the tower signals , ( 2 ) triangulation shift of the phone location , ( 3 ) GPS location shift , etc .
This is a no-brainer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious solution is to add a motion detection circuit to these devices.
When they move faster than, say five mph, they turn off or go blank until their motion drops below the threshold.
Detecting motion could be done in several ways: (1)doppler shift of the tower signals, (2)triangulation shift of the phone location, (3) GPS location shift, etc.
This is a no-brainer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29995424</id>
	<title>faraday cage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257439500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enclose the passenger compartment in two layer of copper mesh.  Phones and TVs will not work inside the car.  Task complete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enclose the passenger compartment in two layer of copper mesh .
Phones and TVs will not work inside the car .
Task complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enclose the passenger compartment in two layer of copper mesh.
Phones and TVs will not work inside the car.
Task complete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984336</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the cure</title>
	<author>TheCarp</author>
	<datestamp>1256979840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Up to a point I agree.</p><p>However.... there are many different driving situations. I primarily drive around town. Seldom at more than 40-45 MPH. My car is low to the ground, and I have a few hundred thousand miles of driving experience. My most likely accident scenarios are minor fender scratchers.</p><p>Frankly, on my average daily commute, there are 3 places where an accident, if one happened, the seat belt would really make a huge difference. Should I wear a seatbelt? probably.</p><p>I think we need to weigh the cost vs the benefit. The cost of it is the cost that people have to pay in tickets AND extra insurance premiums as a result of getting tickets, vs the benefit... the actual cost reduction in actual accidents where it would have made a difference and wasn't being worn.</p><p>I have serious doubts as to whether this is actually an effective public policy. It sounds nice, but, really, it seems like just a gimme to the insurance companies (as usual)</p><p>-Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Up to a point I agree.However.... there are many different driving situations .
I primarily drive around town .
Seldom at more than 40-45 MPH .
My car is low to the ground , and I have a few hundred thousand miles of driving experience .
My most likely accident scenarios are minor fender scratchers.Frankly , on my average daily commute , there are 3 places where an accident , if one happened , the seat belt would really make a huge difference .
Should I wear a seatbelt ?
probably.I think we need to weigh the cost vs the benefit .
The cost of it is the cost that people have to pay in tickets AND extra insurance premiums as a result of getting tickets , vs the benefit... the actual cost reduction in actual accidents where it would have made a difference and was n't being worn.I have serious doubts as to whether this is actually an effective public policy .
It sounds nice , but , really , it seems like just a gim me to the insurance companies ( as usual ) -Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up to a point I agree.However.... there are many different driving situations.
I primarily drive around town.
Seldom at more than 40-45 MPH.
My car is low to the ground, and I have a few hundred thousand miles of driving experience.
My most likely accident scenarios are minor fender scratchers.Frankly, on my average daily commute, there are 3 places where an accident, if one happened, the seat belt would really make a huge difference.
Should I wear a seatbelt?
probably.I think we need to weigh the cost vs the benefit.
The cost of it is the cost that people have to pay in tickets AND extra insurance premiums as a result of getting tickets, vs the benefit... the actual cost reduction in actual accidents where it would have made a difference and wasn't being worn.I have serious doubts as to whether this is actually an effective public policy.
It sounds nice, but, really, it seems like just a gimme to the insurance companies (as usual)-Steve</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982318</id>
	<title>Is it even necessary?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1257017340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has there been a statistically significant increase in accidents caused by distracted driving?<br>By significant I mean real - not just the result of changing the way accidents are reported.</p><p>If not, then this just sounds like bandwagon-jumping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has there been a statistically significant increase in accidents caused by distracted driving ? By significant I mean real - not just the result of changing the way accidents are reported.If not , then this just sounds like bandwagon-jumping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has there been a statistically significant increase in accidents caused by distracted driving?By significant I mean real - not just the result of changing the way accidents are reported.If not, then this just sounds like bandwagon-jumping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29987986</id>
	<title>Re:How about a special license and exam?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256992440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I admit to being one of those people who thinks they can talk, text, drive, read, eat or whatever all at the same time.  I've also been very successful at it - I drive about 6 hours every workday and have yet to have an accident at all.  However, I also do not subjugate my priority from the road.  If I am in a conversation and something happens on the road, I will divert all of my attention to the traffic at hand - even without ending the conversation.  I have dropped or thrown my phone before to ensure control of the vehicle (while braking because of idiots in front of me).  If I am texting and my attention level to the road is not high enough, I stop texting, no if ands or buts about it.  I should also note that in some areas, it's pretty much unsafe across the board - depending on how quickly traffic can change.  In a big city like Chicago, it's foolish to attempt to text.  Texting requires a much larger space between you and the car in front, and in a city, that gap can close in an instant.  I drive on pretty spaced out roads where drivers aren't too crazy, and traffic is pretty predictable (still crowded, but predictable).</p><p>The idea that we could test someone for road attention is an alright idea, but to request answers in a set time is foolish - if the road conditions don't warrant losing focus, they shouldn't be providing answers.  Also, people aren't always going to be in the same state of mind all the time, and so one test can't verify anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I admit to being one of those people who thinks they can talk , text , drive , read , eat or whatever all at the same time .
I 've also been very successful at it - I drive about 6 hours every workday and have yet to have an accident at all .
However , I also do not subjugate my priority from the road .
If I am in a conversation and something happens on the road , I will divert all of my attention to the traffic at hand - even without ending the conversation .
I have dropped or thrown my phone before to ensure control of the vehicle ( while braking because of idiots in front of me ) .
If I am texting and my attention level to the road is not high enough , I stop texting , no if ands or buts about it .
I should also note that in some areas , it 's pretty much unsafe across the board - depending on how quickly traffic can change .
In a big city like Chicago , it 's foolish to attempt to text .
Texting requires a much larger space between you and the car in front , and in a city , that gap can close in an instant .
I drive on pretty spaced out roads where drivers are n't too crazy , and traffic is pretty predictable ( still crowded , but predictable ) .The idea that we could test someone for road attention is an alright idea , but to request answers in a set time is foolish - if the road conditions do n't warrant losing focus , they should n't be providing answers .
Also , people are n't always going to be in the same state of mind all the time , and so one test ca n't verify anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I admit to being one of those people who thinks they can talk, text, drive, read, eat or whatever all at the same time.
I've also been very successful at it - I drive about 6 hours every workday and have yet to have an accident at all.
However, I also do not subjugate my priority from the road.
If I am in a conversation and something happens on the road, I will divert all of my attention to the traffic at hand - even without ending the conversation.
I have dropped or thrown my phone before to ensure control of the vehicle (while braking because of idiots in front of me).
If I am texting and my attention level to the road is not high enough, I stop texting, no if ands or buts about it.
I should also note that in some areas, it's pretty much unsafe across the board - depending on how quickly traffic can change.
In a big city like Chicago, it's foolish to attempt to text.
Texting requires a much larger space between you and the car in front, and in a city, that gap can close in an instant.
I drive on pretty spaced out roads where drivers aren't too crazy, and traffic is pretty predictable (still crowded, but predictable).The idea that we could test someone for road attention is an alright idea, but to request answers in a set time is foolish - if the road conditions don't warrant losing focus, they shouldn't be providing answers.
Also, people aren't always going to be in the same state of mind all the time, and so one test can't verify anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984106</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the cure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257022320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By this reasoning, since most accidents happen in the home, it's the job of the government to regulate your house and reduce medicare/health costs.  This means wearing gloves while cooking, or else you'll be fined.  Ditto if you climb a ladder - that will be banned.  Hire a professional to do repairs or change a bulb in your house.  Or yeah, and no more knives allowed that have points on them.</p><p>This will of course all be monitored by camera,  to ensure compliance with the law.  We will, at last, know an accident-free society in our time!  Thank you.  I'll be running for the presidency in 2012 as the National Socialist Party (democrat for short).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By this reasoning , since most accidents happen in the home , it 's the job of the government to regulate your house and reduce medicare/health costs .
This means wearing gloves while cooking , or else you 'll be fined .
Ditto if you climb a ladder - that will be banned .
Hire a professional to do repairs or change a bulb in your house .
Or yeah , and no more knives allowed that have points on them.This will of course all be monitored by camera , to ensure compliance with the law .
We will , at last , know an accident-free society in our time !
Thank you .
I 'll be running for the presidency in 2012 as the National Socialist Party ( democrat for short ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this reasoning, since most accidents happen in the home, it's the job of the government to regulate your house and reduce medicare/health costs.
This means wearing gloves while cooking, or else you'll be fined.
Ditto if you climb a ladder - that will be banned.
Hire a professional to do repairs or change a bulb in your house.
Or yeah, and no more knives allowed that have points on them.This will of course all be monitored by camera,  to ensure compliance with the law.
We will, at last, know an accident-free society in our time!
Thank you.
I'll be running for the presidency in 2012 as the National Socialist Party (democrat for short).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29995036</id>
	<title>Less is More</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257437640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem here is that we've added so many features to make driving "easier" that people don't believe they *have* to pay attention anymore.</p><p>The solution isn't less driver involvement, it's more.  Get rid of traction control, driving aids, turn-by-turn GPS, and all the other power double-automatic buttwipe systems, and people won't be under the impression that all they have to do is generally point the steering wheel in the vague semblance of the direction they want to end up to get there safely.</p><p>If you don't feel that you can safely navigate a car without driver aids, then make use of public transportation, and free up the roadways for those of us that *enjoy* driving.  Everyone wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is that we 've added so many features to make driving " easier " that people do n't believe they * have * to pay attention anymore.The solution is n't less driver involvement , it 's more .
Get rid of traction control , driving aids , turn-by-turn GPS , and all the other power double-automatic buttwipe systems , and people wo n't be under the impression that all they have to do is generally point the steering wheel in the vague semblance of the direction they want to end up to get there safely.If you do n't feel that you can safely navigate a car without driver aids , then make use of public transportation , and free up the roadways for those of us that * enjoy * driving .
Everyone wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is that we've added so many features to make driving "easier" that people don't believe they *have* to pay attention anymore.The solution isn't less driver involvement, it's more.
Get rid of traction control, driving aids, turn-by-turn GPS, and all the other power double-automatic buttwipe systems, and people won't be under the impression that all they have to do is generally point the steering wheel in the vague semblance of the direction they want to end up to get there safely.If you don't feel that you can safely navigate a car without driver aids, then make use of public transportation, and free up the roadways for those of us that *enjoy* driving.
Everyone wins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988018</id>
	<title>A simple fix</title>
	<author>solune</author>
	<datestamp>1256992620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Seriously - do we REALLY need more government cash spent on working teams, zillion dollar experiments, etc, etc.
</p><p>
The simplest and most cost effective answer (beside replacing airbags with bayonets, which I really like) is to take all that cash you want to spend on working groups, R&amp;D, grants, research etc, and spend it on [drumroll]
</p><p>
ADVERTISING!!!!
</p><p>
Yes, you read right. Use the media - T.V., newspapers, and statistics in that driver's manual, to EDUCATE people about those dangers. Show pictures of twisted metal and flesh, paraplegic teens, and wankerless men (works well) to drive home the point that distracting yourself increases your likelyhood hood of getting injured while texting and driving.
</p><p>
Not to mention, even a preventable fender-bender can raise insurance rates. Hit 'em in the wallet.
</p><p>
If advertising didn't work,  I'd have to wonder why myriad web-sites (like slashdot) are supported by advertising.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously - do we REALLY need more government cash spent on working teams , zillion dollar experiments , etc , etc .
The simplest and most cost effective answer ( beside replacing airbags with bayonets , which I really like ) is to take all that cash you want to spend on working groups , R&amp;D , grants , research etc , and spend it on [ drumroll ] ADVERTISING ! ! ! !
Yes , you read right .
Use the media - T.V. , newspapers , and statistics in that driver 's manual , to EDUCATE people about those dangers .
Show pictures of twisted metal and flesh , paraplegic teens , and wankerless men ( works well ) to drive home the point that distracting yourself increases your likelyhood hood of getting injured while texting and driving .
Not to mention , even a preventable fender-bender can raise insurance rates .
Hit 'em in the wallet .
If advertising did n't work , I 'd have to wonder why myriad web-sites ( like slashdot ) are supported by advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Seriously - do we REALLY need more government cash spent on working teams, zillion dollar experiments, etc, etc.
The simplest and most cost effective answer (beside replacing airbags with bayonets, which I really like) is to take all that cash you want to spend on working groups, R&amp;D, grants, research etc, and spend it on [drumroll]

ADVERTISING!!!!
Yes, you read right.
Use the media - T.V., newspapers, and statistics in that driver's manual, to EDUCATE people about those dangers.
Show pictures of twisted metal and flesh, paraplegic teens, and wankerless men (works well) to drive home the point that distracting yourself increases your likelyhood hood of getting injured while texting and driving.
Not to mention, even a preventable fender-bender can raise insurance rates.
Hit 'em in the wallet.
If advertising didn't work,  I'd have to wonder why myriad web-sites (like slashdot) are supported by advertising.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982958</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the cure</title>
	<author>frosty\_tsm</author>
	<datestamp>1257019020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Motorcycle helmet law = nanny state.

Banning violent video games = nanny state.

Seat belt law = nanny state.

There is a key difference between the items listed above and attempts to stop distracted driving. Items listed above are an attempt to protect us from ourselves. Distracted (or drunk) driving is an attempt to protect you or me from someone else, notably the nut texting her boyfriend who plows her 8 ton SUV into the side of your Prius.</p></div><p>Helmet and seat belt laws != banning violent video games.<br> <br>

When someone has been in an accident, first responders show up and give medical attention regardless of whether the person wore a helmet or had their seat belt on.  If the person didn't die, they are more likely to be in critical condition, requiring more expensive care.  If this person who did not wear a helmet or seat belt also does not have insurance coverage and can't pay (or less likely, chose not to) their bill, then the rest of us pay it for them.<br> <br>

If someone really wants to not wear a helmet or a seat belt, it's their choice as long as I'm not paying their insurance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Motorcycle helmet law = nanny state .
Banning violent video games = nanny state .
Seat belt law = nanny state .
There is a key difference between the items listed above and attempts to stop distracted driving .
Items listed above are an attempt to protect us from ourselves .
Distracted ( or drunk ) driving is an attempt to protect you or me from someone else , notably the nut texting her boyfriend who plows her 8 ton SUV into the side of your Prius.Helmet and seat belt laws ! = banning violent video games .
When someone has been in an accident , first responders show up and give medical attention regardless of whether the person wore a helmet or had their seat belt on .
If the person did n't die , they are more likely to be in critical condition , requiring more expensive care .
If this person who did not wear a helmet or seat belt also does not have insurance coverage and ca n't pay ( or less likely , chose not to ) their bill , then the rest of us pay it for them .
If someone really wants to not wear a helmet or a seat belt , it 's their choice as long as I 'm not paying their insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Motorcycle helmet law = nanny state.
Banning violent video games = nanny state.
Seat belt law = nanny state.
There is a key difference between the items listed above and attempts to stop distracted driving.
Items listed above are an attempt to protect us from ourselves.
Distracted (or drunk) driving is an attempt to protect you or me from someone else, notably the nut texting her boyfriend who plows her 8 ton SUV into the side of your Prius.Helmet and seat belt laws != banning violent video games.
When someone has been in an accident, first responders show up and give medical attention regardless of whether the person wore a helmet or had their seat belt on.
If the person didn't die, they are more likely to be in critical condition, requiring more expensive care.
If this person who did not wear a helmet or seat belt also does not have insurance coverage and can't pay (or less likely, chose not to) their bill, then the rest of us pay it for them.
If someone really wants to not wear a helmet or a seat belt, it's their choice as long as I'm not paying their insurance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983530</id>
	<title>Re:Force Classes..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257020580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>10 seconds for a lane change is insane. My state simply says as early as possible, minimum 100 feet, in their manual.</htmltext>
<tokenext>10 seconds for a lane change is insane .
My state simply says as early as possible , minimum 100 feet , in their manual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 seconds for a lane change is insane.
My state simply says as early as possible, minimum 100 feet, in their manual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985054</id>
	<title>Solution already exists, it's called NDR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256982180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NDR, operated by bureaucrats in one state who don't see a problem with reporting a license suspended 31 years ago (after I no longer lived there), bureaucrats in my state who, though I have been a licensed driver here for many years, simply refused to renew my license because there is a "hold" from another state and also refused to offer any information on how I could correct the situation except to provide the phone number of the transportation department in the other state, and the bureaucrats in the federal government who see no problem with all this, because "There is no statute of limitations." and "Driving is as privilege, not a right." has, so far (After a month, the transportation department in the first state accomplished nothing except to "refer the matter to the research department"), been completely effective in holding up my license renewal, thus, in theory at least, protecting the nation from a driver who might, somehow, be distracted by worry over 34 year old speeding tickets.</p><p>That's just what happened to me, there's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Driver\_Register#Mistaken\_Identity" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">worse</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NDR , operated by bureaucrats in one state who do n't see a problem with reporting a license suspended 31 years ago ( after I no longer lived there ) , bureaucrats in my state who , though I have been a licensed driver here for many years , simply refused to renew my license because there is a " hold " from another state and also refused to offer any information on how I could correct the situation except to provide the phone number of the transportation department in the other state , and the bureaucrats in the federal government who see no problem with all this , because " There is no statute of limitations .
" and " Driving is as privilege , not a right .
" has , so far ( After a month , the transportation department in the first state accomplished nothing except to " refer the matter to the research department " ) , been completely effective in holding up my license renewal , thus , in theory at least , protecting the nation from a driver who might , somehow , be distracted by worry over 34 year old speeding tickets.That 's just what happened to me , there 's worse [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NDR, operated by bureaucrats in one state who don't see a problem with reporting a license suspended 31 years ago (after I no longer lived there), bureaucrats in my state who, though I have been a licensed driver here for many years, simply refused to renew my license because there is a "hold" from another state and also refused to offer any information on how I could correct the situation except to provide the phone number of the transportation department in the other state, and the bureaucrats in the federal government who see no problem with all this, because "There is no statute of limitations.
" and "Driving is as privilege, not a right.
" has, so far (After a month, the transportation department in the first state accomplished nothing except to "refer the matter to the research department"), been completely effective in holding up my license renewal, thus, in theory at least, protecting the nation from a driver who might, somehow, be distracted by worry over 34 year old speeding tickets.That's just what happened to me, there's worse [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983978</id>
	<title>Overcompensation here.</title>
	<author>Singularity42</author>
	<datestamp>1257021900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most people reading and posting on Slashdot will cheer on technology.  However, some will want to overcompensate the other way to appear different and clever.  Keep it in mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people reading and posting on Slashdot will cheer on technology .
However , some will want to overcompensate the other way to appear different and clever .
Keep it in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people reading and posting on Slashdot will cheer on technology.
However, some will want to overcompensate the other way to appear different and clever.
Keep it in mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985120</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256982300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping records</i></p><p>That's because the cars themselves get safer all the time. We didn't use to have disk brakes, ABS, air bags, or even seat belts. An accident that might have killed you thirty years ago you might walk away from today.</p><p>Find the statistics for the number of <i>accidents</i> (I tried and couldn't) per passenger mile and you may or may not have a point, depending on what the stats I couldn't find say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping recordsThat 's because the cars themselves get safer all the time .
We did n't use to have disk brakes , ABS , air bags , or even seat belts .
An accident that might have killed you thirty years ago you might walk away from today.Find the statistics for the number of accidents ( I tried and could n't ) per passenger mile and you may or may not have a point , depending on what the stats I could n't find say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping recordsThat's because the cars themselves get safer all the time.
We didn't use to have disk brakes, ABS, air bags, or even seat belts.
An accident that might have killed you thirty years ago you might walk away from today.Find the statistics for the number of accidents (I tried and couldn't) per passenger mile and you may or may not have a point, depending on what the stats I couldn't find say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982864</id>
	<title>Simple</title>
	<author>ThorGod</author>
	<datestamp>1257018720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get rid of speed limits and design roads that have some twists and turns.</p><p>aka  Try and make driving more fun that it currently is.  There's always going to be that element of society that just can't judge what the right speed for a stretch of road is.  But twists and turns *demand* a certain speed limit inherently.  I'm sure I'm going to get whiney comments about why my suggestion is impractical for anywhere but Germany.  But I would hope there'd be some out there willing to take the mental experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get rid of speed limits and design roads that have some twists and turns.aka Try and make driving more fun that it currently is .
There 's always going to be that element of society that just ca n't judge what the right speed for a stretch of road is .
But twists and turns * demand * a certain speed limit inherently .
I 'm sure I 'm going to get whiney comments about why my suggestion is impractical for anywhere but Germany .
But I would hope there 'd be some out there willing to take the mental experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get rid of speed limits and design roads that have some twists and turns.aka  Try and make driving more fun that it currently is.
There's always going to be that element of society that just can't judge what the right speed for a stretch of road is.
But twists and turns *demand* a certain speed limit inherently.
I'm sure I'm going to get whiney comments about why my suggestion is impractical for anywhere but Germany.
But I would hope there'd be some out there willing to take the mental experiment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983124</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1257019500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The alternative is that, having solved all the severe problems, they are moving on to the milder ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The alternative is that , having solved all the severe problems , they are moving on to the milder ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The alternative is that, having solved all the severe problems, they are moving on to the milder ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982244</id>
	<title>Wrong approach</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think what is really needed is to REMOVE technology from driving.  Fuck that radio, fuck that phone, most especially fuck that laptop you have propped up on your steering wheel as you try to finish a paper on the way to class.</p><p>(... I'll admit it, even I have found myself doing all three at the same time on more than one occasion).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what is really needed is to REMOVE technology from driving .
Fuck that radio , fuck that phone , most especially fuck that laptop you have propped up on your steering wheel as you try to finish a paper on the way to class. ( .. .
I 'll admit it , even I have found myself doing all three at the same time on more than one occasion ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what is really needed is to REMOVE technology from driving.
Fuck that radio, fuck that phone, most especially fuck that laptop you have propped up on your steering wheel as you try to finish a paper on the way to class.(...
I'll admit it, even I have found myself doing all three at the same time on more than one occasion).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988344</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1256994240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you say to your spouse with two black eyes?
<br> <br>
Nothing they've already been told twice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you say to your spouse with two black eyes ?
Nothing they 've already been told twice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you say to your spouse with two black eyes?
Nothing they've already been told twice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985842</id>
	<title>Re:Simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256984340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the only real solution to distracted driving is ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS !<br>Why create new laws specific to using a cell phone while driving when we already have careless driving laws ?</p><p>The other day during a neighborhood watch meeting we got onto this very subject.<br>The chief of police agreed with me that talking on the cell phone while driving is careless driving; and he sees people doing it all the time.<br>Yet when I asked him how many careless driving tickets he's issued to people talking on the cell phone while driving. He very quickly changed the subject.<br>Laws don't mean squat if the police won't enforce them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the only real solution to distracted driving is ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS ! Why create new laws specific to using a cell phone while driving when we already have careless driving laws ? The other day during a neighborhood watch meeting we got onto this very subject.The chief of police agreed with me that talking on the cell phone while driving is careless driving ; and he sees people doing it all the time.Yet when I asked him how many careless driving tickets he 's issued to people talking on the cell phone while driving .
He very quickly changed the subject.Laws do n't mean squat if the police wo n't enforce them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the only real solution to distracted driving is ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS !Why create new laws specific to using a cell phone while driving when we already have careless driving laws ?The other day during a neighborhood watch meeting we got onto this very subject.The chief of police agreed with me that talking on the cell phone while driving is careless driving; and he sees people doing it all the time.Yet when I asked him how many careless driving tickets he's issued to people talking on the cell phone while driving.
He very quickly changed the subject.Laws don't mean squat if the police won't enforce them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982770</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1257018480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a ready solution to your problem, but you'd have to put up with the lawyer yapping.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a ready solution to your problem , but you 'd have to put up with the lawyer yapping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a ready solution to your problem, but you'd have to put up with the lawyer yapping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988622</id>
	<title>Re:How about a special license and exam?</title>
	<author>Al Dimond</author>
	<datestamp>1256995620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about general distraction studies, but a study done on distracted driving showed that cell phone conversations, even hands-free ones were more distracting than conversations with people in the car.  And there are good reasons to expect this result.  Anyway.</p><p>1. I don't care if it's a luxury, or about people flaunting things.  I care that people pay attention, a lot, as a runner and a cyclist.</p><p>2. Radios don't demand your attention the way that phone callers do.  You can completely tune them out -- often while driving with a CD playing my favorite song on the album will go by and I won't notice until halfway through the next one.  They don't demand much of your reasoning abilities, don't demand that you try to remember anything, and are very unlikely to frustrate or annoy you, as callers often do.  If radios were anywhere near the distraction problem of phones people would be studying them.</p><p>3. Passengers in the car know that you're driving.  They don't just know it as a fact, they're in the same boat.  They can see traffic conditions and respond to your body language.  They know when you don't respond immediately that you're still there (pauses become awkward *fast* on the phone -- someone talking to you face-to-face would never "ping" you by saying, "Hello?" or, "You still there?" like people do on the phone all the time).  Passengers, in fact, often help drivers operate the radio/heater/windows, find change for tolls, navigate, and notice dangerous situations on the road.  That's not true of everyone, but it's true of just about all my passengers.</p><p>I was once almost hit by a woman holding a dog in her lap (I was on my bike, caught up to her at the next stoplight, and knocked on her window to notify her that she was driving unsafely -- she said she didn't see me, which was really scary).  I know that pets and children can be a problem... so store them properly!  Cats and small dogs have carriers, children have child seats.  Believe me, I don't ignore this problem.  There's another factor to this -- often when traveling with passengers the whole point of the trip is to get the passengers somewhere.  Banning them would defeat the whole purpose.</p><p>4. This is a caricature.  I am quite aware that there is no one cause for anything.  When on the road there's a certain amount of risk that we have to accept.  When people willfully do things that introduce risk beyond that we should single those things out.  Speeding, bad lane behavior, driving drunk/high, fiddling excessively with stereo/heater/iPod, holding a dog in your lap... I will single those things out.  Using a phone to text or make a call is one of those things also; based on actual studies, it increases the risk of an accident more than drinking to the legal limit in the average person.</p><p>5. More caricatures.</p><p>6. More caricatures.  I should note that when you drive distracted you externalize that additional risk you create onto other road users.  So you're imposing your will on others as well.  When externalities are involved, the argument, "I should just do WTF I want" doesn't hold much weight.  True, some people like to tell people what to do when their behavior doesn't really affect anyone else.  Anti-cell phone people are not among them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about general distraction studies , but a study done on distracted driving showed that cell phone conversations , even hands-free ones were more distracting than conversations with people in the car .
And there are good reasons to expect this result .
Anyway.1. I do n't care if it 's a luxury , or about people flaunting things .
I care that people pay attention , a lot , as a runner and a cyclist.2 .
Radios do n't demand your attention the way that phone callers do .
You can completely tune them out -- often while driving with a CD playing my favorite song on the album will go by and I wo n't notice until halfway through the next one .
They do n't demand much of your reasoning abilities , do n't demand that you try to remember anything , and are very unlikely to frustrate or annoy you , as callers often do .
If radios were anywhere near the distraction problem of phones people would be studying them.3 .
Passengers in the car know that you 're driving .
They do n't just know it as a fact , they 're in the same boat .
They can see traffic conditions and respond to your body language .
They know when you do n't respond immediately that you 're still there ( pauses become awkward * fast * on the phone -- someone talking to you face-to-face would never " ping " you by saying , " Hello ?
" or , " You still there ?
" like people do on the phone all the time ) .
Passengers , in fact , often help drivers operate the radio/heater/windows , find change for tolls , navigate , and notice dangerous situations on the road .
That 's not true of everyone , but it 's true of just about all my passengers.I was once almost hit by a woman holding a dog in her lap ( I was on my bike , caught up to her at the next stoplight , and knocked on her window to notify her that she was driving unsafely -- she said she did n't see me , which was really scary ) .
I know that pets and children can be a problem... so store them properly !
Cats and small dogs have carriers , children have child seats .
Believe me , I do n't ignore this problem .
There 's another factor to this -- often when traveling with passengers the whole point of the trip is to get the passengers somewhere .
Banning them would defeat the whole purpose.4 .
This is a caricature .
I am quite aware that there is no one cause for anything .
When on the road there 's a certain amount of risk that we have to accept .
When people willfully do things that introduce risk beyond that we should single those things out .
Speeding , bad lane behavior , driving drunk/high , fiddling excessively with stereo/heater/iPod , holding a dog in your lap... I will single those things out .
Using a phone to text or make a call is one of those things also ; based on actual studies , it increases the risk of an accident more than drinking to the legal limit in the average person.5 .
More caricatures.6 .
More caricatures .
I should note that when you drive distracted you externalize that additional risk you create onto other road users .
So you 're imposing your will on others as well .
When externalities are involved , the argument , " I should just do WTF I want " does n't hold much weight .
True , some people like to tell people what to do when their behavior does n't really affect anyone else .
Anti-cell phone people are not among them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about general distraction studies, but a study done on distracted driving showed that cell phone conversations, even hands-free ones were more distracting than conversations with people in the car.
And there are good reasons to expect this result.
Anyway.1. I don't care if it's a luxury, or about people flaunting things.
I care that people pay attention, a lot, as a runner and a cyclist.2.
Radios don't demand your attention the way that phone callers do.
You can completely tune them out -- often while driving with a CD playing my favorite song on the album will go by and I won't notice until halfway through the next one.
They don't demand much of your reasoning abilities, don't demand that you try to remember anything, and are very unlikely to frustrate or annoy you, as callers often do.
If radios were anywhere near the distraction problem of phones people would be studying them.3.
Passengers in the car know that you're driving.
They don't just know it as a fact, they're in the same boat.
They can see traffic conditions and respond to your body language.
They know when you don't respond immediately that you're still there (pauses become awkward *fast* on the phone -- someone talking to you face-to-face would never "ping" you by saying, "Hello?
" or, "You still there?
" like people do on the phone all the time).
Passengers, in fact, often help drivers operate the radio/heater/windows, find change for tolls, navigate, and notice dangerous situations on the road.
That's not true of everyone, but it's true of just about all my passengers.I was once almost hit by a woman holding a dog in her lap (I was on my bike, caught up to her at the next stoplight, and knocked on her window to notify her that she was driving unsafely -- she said she didn't see me, which was really scary).
I know that pets and children can be a problem... so store them properly!
Cats and small dogs have carriers, children have child seats.
Believe me, I don't ignore this problem.
There's another factor to this -- often when traveling with passengers the whole point of the trip is to get the passengers somewhere.
Banning them would defeat the whole purpose.4.
This is a caricature.
I am quite aware that there is no one cause for anything.
When on the road there's a certain amount of risk that we have to accept.
When people willfully do things that introduce risk beyond that we should single those things out.
Speeding, bad lane behavior, driving drunk/high, fiddling excessively with stereo/heater/iPod, holding a dog in your lap... I will single those things out.
Using a phone to text or make a call is one of those things also; based on actual studies, it increases the risk of an accident more than drinking to the legal limit in the average person.5.
More caricatures.6.
More caricatures.
I should note that when you drive distracted you externalize that additional risk you create onto other road users.
So you're imposing your will on others as well.
When externalities are involved, the argument, "I should just do WTF I want" doesn't hold much weight.
True, some people like to tell people what to do when their behavior doesn't really affect anyone else.
Anti-cell phone people are not among them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986304</id>
	<title>too safe...</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1256985720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From my experience, it seems the problem stems from the fact that we are already too safe (or perhaps, we simply believe we are already too safe) when we drive.  This, I believe, is directly correlated to the size of vehicle you drive.  When your transportation feels more like an extension of your living room -- where you feel safe, and therefore don't pay attention to what is happening around you -- it is easy to become complacent and stop driving defensively.  The more insulated you are from the outside world, the less you are going to pay attention to traffic around you.  Furthermore, drivers of large vehicles seem to think that the size of their vehicle will keep them safe in an accident...whereas I, having spent all but the last two years on the road in small sport-compact cars, would rather avoid the accident in the first place, so I drive like everyone else on the road is actively trying to kill me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  Even so, when I started riding motorcycles -- where you <i>really</i> feel exposed* -- I was amazed at how much more I began paying attention to traffic around me.  Technology won't fix this; complacent drivers will only become more complacent if they feel like &quot;big brother&quot; is watching over them.
<br> <br>
*the first time I stopped at a red light in traffic on my bike, I had a difficult time squelching the little voice in my head that was asking what possible reason I could have to be just <b>standing</b> in the middle of the road like an idiot, lol.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From my experience , it seems the problem stems from the fact that we are already too safe ( or perhaps , we simply believe we are already too safe ) when we drive .
This , I believe , is directly correlated to the size of vehicle you drive .
When your transportation feels more like an extension of your living room -- where you feel safe , and therefore do n't pay attention to what is happening around you -- it is easy to become complacent and stop driving defensively .
The more insulated you are from the outside world , the less you are going to pay attention to traffic around you .
Furthermore , drivers of large vehicles seem to think that the size of their vehicle will keep them safe in an accident...whereas I , having spent all but the last two years on the road in small sport-compact cars , would rather avoid the accident in the first place , so I drive like everyone else on the road is actively trying to kill me : ) Even so , when I started riding motorcycles -- where you really feel exposed * -- I was amazed at how much more I began paying attention to traffic around me .
Technology wo n't fix this ; complacent drivers will only become more complacent if they feel like " big brother " is watching over them .
* the first time I stopped at a red light in traffic on my bike , I had a difficult time squelching the little voice in my head that was asking what possible reason I could have to be just standing in the middle of the road like an idiot , lol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my experience, it seems the problem stems from the fact that we are already too safe (or perhaps, we simply believe we are already too safe) when we drive.
This, I believe, is directly correlated to the size of vehicle you drive.
When your transportation feels more like an extension of your living room -- where you feel safe, and therefore don't pay attention to what is happening around you -- it is easy to become complacent and stop driving defensively.
The more insulated you are from the outside world, the less you are going to pay attention to traffic around you.
Furthermore, drivers of large vehicles seem to think that the size of their vehicle will keep them safe in an accident...whereas I, having spent all but the last two years on the road in small sport-compact cars, would rather avoid the accident in the first place, so I drive like everyone else on the road is actively trying to kill me :)  Even so, when I started riding motorcycles -- where you really feel exposed* -- I was amazed at how much more I began paying attention to traffic around me.
Technology won't fix this; complacent drivers will only become more complacent if they feel like "big brother" is watching over them.
*the first time I stopped at a red light in traffic on my bike, I had a difficult time squelching the little voice in my head that was asking what possible reason I could have to be just standing in the middle of the road like an idiot, lol.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278</id>
	<title>How about a special license and exam?</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1257017220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are people who can talk and drive/fly at the same time and do it safely.<br><br>So I'm sure a fair number of people can learn and be trained to do it under controlled and safe conditions. And that you can set an exam for it - e.g. on simulator they have to get from A to B through difficult traffic and road conditions while you ask them fairly difficult questions over a phone and they have to answer in a timely manner.<br><br>As for the rest who can't pass that exam, they should just be trained and learn to "shut up and drive" and "forget everything else and drive" when road conditions get difficult. It doesn't matter whether there's tech involved or not - you could be chatting with a passenger, fine but if the road conditions get difficult, just shut up and drive. If they can't even do this (which is easier), they shouldn't be allowed to drive. It's a matter of priorities - people don't take driving seriously enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are people who can talk and drive/fly at the same time and do it safely.So I 'm sure a fair number of people can learn and be trained to do it under controlled and safe conditions .
And that you can set an exam for it - e.g .
on simulator they have to get from A to B through difficult traffic and road conditions while you ask them fairly difficult questions over a phone and they have to answer in a timely manner.As for the rest who ca n't pass that exam , they should just be trained and learn to " shut up and drive " and " forget everything else and drive " when road conditions get difficult .
It does n't matter whether there 's tech involved or not - you could be chatting with a passenger , fine but if the road conditions get difficult , just shut up and drive .
If they ca n't even do this ( which is easier ) , they should n't be allowed to drive .
It 's a matter of priorities - people do n't take driving seriously enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are people who can talk and drive/fly at the same time and do it safely.So I'm sure a fair number of people can learn and be trained to do it under controlled and safe conditions.
And that you can set an exam for it - e.g.
on simulator they have to get from A to B through difficult traffic and road conditions while you ask them fairly difficult questions over a phone and they have to answer in a timely manner.As for the rest who can't pass that exam, they should just be trained and learn to "shut up and drive" and "forget everything else and drive" when road conditions get difficult.
It doesn't matter whether there's tech involved or not - you could be chatting with a passenger, fine but if the road conditions get difficult, just shut up and drive.
If they can't even do this (which is easier), they shouldn't be allowed to drive.
It's a matter of priorities - people don't take driving seriously enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985704</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the cure</title>
	<author>cream wobbly</author>
	<datestamp>1256983980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Driving is a privilege? If that were true, the state could take your license on a whim.</p></div><p>And they do. Ever heard of red light and speed cameras?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's closer to a right - anyone who demonstrates the ability to drive safely is allowed to do so.</p></div><p>Erm, the typical U.S. driving test doesn't give people <em>chance</em> to demonstrate the ability to drive, safely or otherwise.</p><p>Conducting a vehicle, yes. Actually being in control of it and aware of other road users? How on earth is that tested by a five minute jaunt around the block with no pedestrians, no highways, no left turns? Not to mention emergency stops, three-point-turns, and ability to reverse into a parking spot. (Parallel parking <em>is</em> on the test in AZ.)</p><p>But back to your point. Something about passing a test gets you a license. If you <em>don't</em> pass the test, you don't get to drive. So show me where that's <em>not</em> intended to exclude those who cannot drive? Pretty please?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Driving is a privilege ?
If that were true , the state could take your license on a whim.And they do .
Ever heard of red light and speed cameras ? It 's closer to a right - anyone who demonstrates the ability to drive safely is allowed to do so.Erm , the typical U.S. driving test does n't give people chance to demonstrate the ability to drive , safely or otherwise.Conducting a vehicle , yes .
Actually being in control of it and aware of other road users ?
How on earth is that tested by a five minute jaunt around the block with no pedestrians , no highways , no left turns ?
Not to mention emergency stops , three-point-turns , and ability to reverse into a parking spot .
( Parallel parking is on the test in AZ .
) But back to your point .
Something about passing a test gets you a license .
If you do n't pass the test , you do n't get to drive .
So show me where that 's not intended to exclude those who can not drive ?
Pretty please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Driving is a privilege?
If that were true, the state could take your license on a whim.And they do.
Ever heard of red light and speed cameras?It's closer to a right - anyone who demonstrates the ability to drive safely is allowed to do so.Erm, the typical U.S. driving test doesn't give people chance to demonstrate the ability to drive, safely or otherwise.Conducting a vehicle, yes.
Actually being in control of it and aware of other road users?
How on earth is that tested by a five minute jaunt around the block with no pedestrians, no highways, no left turns?
Not to mention emergency stops, three-point-turns, and ability to reverse into a parking spot.
(Parallel parking is on the test in AZ.
)But back to your point.
Something about passing a test gets you a license.
If you don't pass the test, you don't get to drive.
So show me where that's not intended to exclude those who cannot drive?
Pretty please?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983608</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1257020760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use a low-tech method; Duct tape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use a low-tech method ; Duct tape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use a low-tech method; Duct tape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983178</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1257019620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I suggest a very low tech solution, one that has been successfully deployed from my Great grandfather down through the ranks of the family.</p><p>It's called "Don;t make me stop this car."  This is followed up by a serious ass kicking the first time you actually do, and then again with stricter and stricter restraints until they practically raise their hand to ask permission to speak to each other in the back seat, let alone you.</p><p>Kids will simply not stop unless they are given a significant reason.  Simple groundings work for 8+ year olds, but for small children, typically spanking is the only thing that really works effectiveley as they do you yet comprehend forward looking punishment (this is a nuerological fact easily proven).  There must be instant punishment for bad actions.  Equally, good reward quickly offered for good behavior should be used as further encouragement.  (stock lolly pops in the car, not only is it a handy reward, it also limits continued conversation effectively when mouths are full).</p><p>Anytime you;re going somewhere with kids, the option to turn back and go home (if you;re driving somewhere they'd like to be), or threatening to change routes and go somewhere they certainly do NOT want to be (dentist!), must lalways be an option.</p><p>You might be against physical punishment of your children, and personally I am to keep it at a minimum, but kids do not learn not to touch hot things until they've been burned at least once.  A good ass kicking of a 6 year old saves 100 future punishments or more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I suggest a very low tech solution , one that has been successfully deployed from my Great grandfather down through the ranks of the family.It 's called " Don ; t make me stop this car .
" This is followed up by a serious ass kicking the first time you actually do , and then again with stricter and stricter restraints until they practically raise their hand to ask permission to speak to each other in the back seat , let alone you.Kids will simply not stop unless they are given a significant reason .
Simple groundings work for 8 + year olds , but for small children , typically spanking is the only thing that really works effectiveley as they do you yet comprehend forward looking punishment ( this is a nuerological fact easily proven ) .
There must be instant punishment for bad actions .
Equally , good reward quickly offered for good behavior should be used as further encouragement .
( stock lolly pops in the car , not only is it a handy reward , it also limits continued conversation effectively when mouths are full ) .Anytime you ; re going somewhere with kids , the option to turn back and go home ( if you ; re driving somewhere they 'd like to be ) , or threatening to change routes and go somewhere they certainly do NOT want to be ( dentist !
) , must lalways be an option.You might be against physical punishment of your children , and personally I am to keep it at a minimum , but kids do not learn not to touch hot things until they 've been burned at least once .
A good ass kicking of a 6 year old saves 100 future punishments or more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I suggest a very low tech solution, one that has been successfully deployed from my Great grandfather down through the ranks of the family.It's called "Don;t make me stop this car.
"  This is followed up by a serious ass kicking the first time you actually do, and then again with stricter and stricter restraints until they practically raise their hand to ask permission to speak to each other in the back seat, let alone you.Kids will simply not stop unless they are given a significant reason.
Simple groundings work for 8+ year olds, but for small children, typically spanking is the only thing that really works effectiveley as they do you yet comprehend forward looking punishment (this is a nuerological fact easily proven).
There must be instant punishment for bad actions.
Equally, good reward quickly offered for good behavior should be used as further encouragement.
(stock lolly pops in the car, not only is it a handy reward, it also limits continued conversation effectively when mouths are full).Anytime you;re going somewhere with kids, the option to turn back and go home (if you;re driving somewhere they'd like to be), or threatening to change routes and go somewhere they certainly do NOT want to be (dentist!
), must lalways be an option.You might be against physical punishment of your children, and personally I am to keep it at a minimum, but kids do not learn not to touch hot things until they've been burned at least once.
A good ass kicking of a 6 year old saves 100 future punishments or more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982288</id>
	<title>Drive, damn you. Drive!</title>
	<author>Capt.DrumkenBum</author>
	<datestamp>1257017280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am, after 2 years, still recovering form the injuries sustained by a person in a large SUV talking on their cell phone who slammed right into the back of my car. I will probably feel pain in my left shoulder for the rest of my life. I would like to ask everyone to put down their phones and drive their damn cars!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am , after 2 years , still recovering form the injuries sustained by a person in a large SUV talking on their cell phone who slammed right into the back of my car .
I will probably feel pain in my left shoulder for the rest of my life .
I would like to ask everyone to put down their phones and drive their damn cars !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am, after 2 years, still recovering form the injuries sustained by a person in a large SUV talking on their cell phone who slammed right into the back of my car.
I will probably feel pain in my left shoulder for the rest of my life.
I would like to ask everyone to put down their phones and drive their damn cars!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982746</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1257018420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ejection seats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ejection seats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ejection seats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982192</id>
	<title>The answer gotta be ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lasers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lasers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lasers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986496</id>
	<title>simple solition I think</title>
	<author>G00F</author>
	<datestamp>1256986560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the steering wheel is not in contact by two hands for more than 1 second, car goes into neutral, if untouched for more than 5 seconds an electrical shock given to the driver and passenger through the seat.</p><p>Can also accompany by beeping and flashing lights to warn others that announce the driver as an idiot that is putting him and everyone else in danger.</p><p>This would also work great for those falling asleep at the wheel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the steering wheel is not in contact by two hands for more than 1 second , car goes into neutral , if untouched for more than 5 seconds an electrical shock given to the driver and passenger through the seat.Can also accompany by beeping and flashing lights to warn others that announce the driver as an idiot that is putting him and everyone else in danger.This would also work great for those falling asleep at the wheel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the steering wheel is not in contact by two hands for more than 1 second, car goes into neutral, if untouched for more than 5 seconds an electrical shock given to the driver and passenger through the seat.Can also accompany by beeping and flashing lights to warn others that announce the driver as an idiot that is putting him and everyone else in danger.This would also work great for those falling asleep at the wheel</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982442</id>
	<title>There once was a lady...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of a poem:</p><p>There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,<br>That wriggled and wiggled and tiggled inside her;<br>She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;<br>I don't know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she'll die!<br>There was an old lady who swallowed a bird;<br>How absurd to swallow a bird.<br>She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,<br>She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of a poem : There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,That wriggled and wiggled and tiggled inside her ; She swallowed the spider to catch the fly ; I do n't know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she 'll die ! There was an old lady who swallowed a bird ; How absurd to swallow a bird.She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,She swallowed the spider to catch the fly ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of a poem:There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,That wriggled and wiggled and tiggled inside her;She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;I don't know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she'll die!There was an old lady who swallowed a bird;How absurd to swallow a bird.She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29997760</id>
	<title>Re:Steering wheel spike</title>
	<author>Bovarchist</author>
	<datestamp>1257450660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really don't think you could pull that off in a car without power steering.  Unless maybe you've got really muscular legs and are wearing really sticky kneepads...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't think you could pull that off in a car without power steering .
Unless maybe you 've got really muscular legs and are wearing really sticky kneepads.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't think you could pull that off in a car without power steering.
Unless maybe you've got really muscular legs and are wearing really sticky kneepads...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983368</id>
	<title>Re:Is it even necessary?</title>
	<author>waddleman</author>
	<datestamp>1257020100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Wisconsin, accidents related to cell phone usage have roughly equaled the reduction in accident drunk driving accidents for drivers under 21, leading to no net improvement for that category. Sadly, it is a problem, not just a bandwagon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Wisconsin , accidents related to cell phone usage have roughly equaled the reduction in accident drunk driving accidents for drivers under 21 , leading to no net improvement for that category .
Sadly , it is a problem , not just a bandwagon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Wisconsin, accidents related to cell phone usage have roughly equaled the reduction in accident drunk driving accidents for drivers under 21, leading to no net improvement for that category.
Sadly, it is a problem, not just a bandwagon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982202</id>
	<title>Force Classes..</title>
	<author>RocketChild</author>
	<datestamp>1257016980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate to say it, because I would hate to have to do it because others suck at driving...But require people every five years to go back through an 4 hour course where they remind people on driving distances, who has the right of way when merging on/off the highway, how far to stay behind someone at a stoplight.

Either that, or spend the money on public service TV spots that run all the time that tell people not to pull out on a rural road when the speed limit is 55 mph or to always use a turn light for 10 seconds during a lane change.  They might not "FIX" the problem, but might help over time by re-enforcing better habits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to say it , because I would hate to have to do it because others suck at driving...But require people every five years to go back through an 4 hour course where they remind people on driving distances , who has the right of way when merging on/off the highway , how far to stay behind someone at a stoplight .
Either that , or spend the money on public service TV spots that run all the time that tell people not to pull out on a rural road when the speed limit is 55 mph or to always use a turn light for 10 seconds during a lane change .
They might not " FIX " the problem , but might help over time by re-enforcing better habits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to say it, because I would hate to have to do it because others suck at driving...But require people every five years to go back through an 4 hour course where they remind people on driving distances, who has the right of way when merging on/off the highway, how far to stay behind someone at a stoplight.
Either that, or spend the money on public service TV spots that run all the time that tell people not to pull out on a rural road when the speed limit is 55 mph or to always use a turn light for 10 seconds during a lane change.
They might not "FIX" the problem, but might help over time by re-enforcing better habits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986876</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1256988000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good point. By the same logic, I think we ought to do away with vaccinations, since deaths from measles, mumps, and rubella are extremely low these days. Deaths from heart disease are also much lower than they were in the 1950's, so I think we can safely stop worrying about smoking and obesity as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
By the same logic , I think we ought to do away with vaccinations , since deaths from measles , mumps , and rubella are extremely low these days .
Deaths from heart disease are also much lower than they were in the 1950 's , so I think we can safely stop worrying about smoking and obesity as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
By the same logic, I think we ought to do away with vaccinations, since deaths from measles, mumps, and rubella are extremely low these days.
Deaths from heart disease are also much lower than they were in the 1950's, so I think we can safely stop worrying about smoking and obesity as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983014</id>
	<title>High Tech?</title>
	<author>Caviller</author>
	<datestamp>1257019200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They want a High-tech cure to fix the problem of High-tech gadgets in the cars??

Does anyone else see the irony here?

How about make it not worth the trouble to use the gadgets in the first place.  Example: (Let's say....5\% or your yearly income if caught txting while driving; or if you hit someone while txting, insurance it not required to pay anything and YOU have to pay for all damages).  I bet you would see a lowering of people that are txting while driving in that example.  That's the biggest problem with traffic laws...the penalties are WAY too small to be an effective deterrent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They want a High-tech cure to fix the problem of High-tech gadgets in the cars ? ?
Does anyone else see the irony here ?
How about make it not worth the trouble to use the gadgets in the first place .
Example : ( Let 's say....5 \ % or your yearly income if caught txting while driving ; or if you hit someone while txting , insurance it not required to pay anything and YOU have to pay for all damages ) .
I bet you would see a lowering of people that are txting while driving in that example .
That 's the biggest problem with traffic laws...the penalties are WAY too small to be an effective deterrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want a High-tech cure to fix the problem of High-tech gadgets in the cars??
Does anyone else see the irony here?
How about make it not worth the trouble to use the gadgets in the first place.
Example: (Let's say....5\% or your yearly income if caught txting while driving; or if you hit someone while txting, insurance it not required to pay anything and YOU have to pay for all damages).
I bet you would see a lowering of people that are txting while driving in that example.
That's the biggest problem with traffic laws...the penalties are WAY too small to be an effective deterrent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982994</id>
	<title>isn't that how we got here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257019140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't "Technology" Exactly how we created distracted drivers?</p><p>I, for one, feel that the more we try and fix this problem, and the problem of road safety in general, the more of a problem it will become. We're off-loading more and more responsibility and decision making off the driver, and as such, we're allowing the driver to not concentrate on what they are doing - piloting several tons worth of steel at, frankly, ridiculous speeds.</p><p>Safety innovations such as traction control, ABS, and cars that stay in their own lane and stop themselves (Mercedes S Class) have, no doubt, saved lives. But they've certainly helped allow for driver distraction (via safety complacency, and being able to get away with maneuvers you shouldn't) at least as much as the in-dash radio. Perhaps as much as the Cell Phone.</p><p>I really miss the days when cars required attention to drive them. When most people had manual transmissions, no ABS, and long braking distances. People payed more attention to what they were doing because they had to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't " Technology " Exactly how we created distracted drivers ? I , for one , feel that the more we try and fix this problem , and the problem of road safety in general , the more of a problem it will become .
We 're off-loading more and more responsibility and decision making off the driver , and as such , we 're allowing the driver to not concentrate on what they are doing - piloting several tons worth of steel at , frankly , ridiculous speeds.Safety innovations such as traction control , ABS , and cars that stay in their own lane and stop themselves ( Mercedes S Class ) have , no doubt , saved lives .
But they 've certainly helped allow for driver distraction ( via safety complacency , and being able to get away with maneuvers you should n't ) at least as much as the in-dash radio .
Perhaps as much as the Cell Phone.I really miss the days when cars required attention to drive them .
When most people had manual transmissions , no ABS , and long braking distances .
People payed more attention to what they were doing because they had to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't "Technology" Exactly how we created distracted drivers?I, for one, feel that the more we try and fix this problem, and the problem of road safety in general, the more of a problem it will become.
We're off-loading more and more responsibility and decision making off the driver, and as such, we're allowing the driver to not concentrate on what they are doing - piloting several tons worth of steel at, frankly, ridiculous speeds.Safety innovations such as traction control, ABS, and cars that stay in their own lane and stop themselves (Mercedes S Class) have, no doubt, saved lives.
But they've certainly helped allow for driver distraction (via safety complacency, and being able to get away with maneuvers you shouldn't) at least as much as the in-dash radio.
Perhaps as much as the Cell Phone.I really miss the days when cars required attention to drive them.
When most people had manual transmissions, no ABS, and long braking distances.
People payed more attention to what they were doing because they had to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212</id>
	<title>Steering wheel spike</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257016980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would guess the simplest solution would be a sharp point in the middle of the steering wheel.</p><p>There is nothing like the threat of death to keep one focused.</p><p>What we have done is made driving so easy and effortless that people feel free to do other tasks. All this stability and traction control have just added to the feeling of control. Adding even more safeguards is just going to let people do more other activities.</p><p>Reminder of the story of the person in the motor home who set the speed control then made a sandwich. Urban legend or not it is human nature to self distract if a task does not require attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would guess the simplest solution would be a sharp point in the middle of the steering wheel.There is nothing like the threat of death to keep one focused.What we have done is made driving so easy and effortless that people feel free to do other tasks .
All this stability and traction control have just added to the feeling of control .
Adding even more safeguards is just going to let people do more other activities.Reminder of the story of the person in the motor home who set the speed control then made a sandwich .
Urban legend or not it is human nature to self distract if a task does not require attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would guess the simplest solution would be a sharp point in the middle of the steering wheel.There is nothing like the threat of death to keep one focused.What we have done is made driving so easy and effortless that people feel free to do other tasks.
All this stability and traction control have just added to the feeling of control.
Adding even more safeguards is just going to let people do more other activities.Reminder of the story of the person in the motor home who set the speed control then made a sandwich.
Urban legend or not it is human nature to self distract if a task does not require attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986344</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the cure</title>
	<author>cream wobbly</author>
	<datestamp>1256985840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Motorcycle helmet law = nanny state.</p></div><p>You're <em>dead</em> wrong. I can't emphasise the word "dead" enough here. Emergency crews are paid for partly by monies collected from the individual in the form of an insurance, but <em>mainly</em> by monies collected from taxpayers. So, to counter your statement: <em>Emergency crews = nanny state</em> </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Banning violent video games = nanny state.</p></div><p>Not quite true, because you're assuming the people exposed to violent video games have the choice that you would like for yourself. However, we're talking about children. Yes, think of the children for a change, would you? Fine, if you can guarantee that no child will be exposed to this type of <em>interactive</em> pornography, you can have all the violence you want. I'm partial to a bit of GTA myself. Obvious counter: <em>Banning pornography = nanny state.</em> </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Seat belt law = nanny state.</p></div><p>Absolutely wrong, for the same reasons as the motorcycle helmet law, and (helpfully, thank you) the reasons why videogames beyond a certain level of violence should continue to be unacceptable for sale. Those affected by the lack of a seatbelt often do not have the luxury of choice: babies, children, etc. I don't give a flying flick about lone drivers -- that is, unless the fire crews and police have to stay later to pry the remaining bits from the grille of the semi which <em>my taxes pay for</em>. Would you like your point escalated? <em>Child restraints = nanny state.</em> </p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a key difference between the items listed above and attempts to stop distracted driving.</p></div><p>If you believe so, then you are misinterpreting the targets of the items.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Items listed above are an attempt to protect us from ourselves.</p></div><p>Bullshit. That's one side effect. That is not the overriding reason why they become law.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Distracted (or drunk) driving is an attempt to protect you or me from someone else, notably the nut texting her boyfriend who plows her 8 ton SUV into the side of your Prius.</p></div><p>Or her Prius into the side of an 8 ton SUV. It makes little difference, except the SUV will roll, the Prius will not.</p><p>But I suppose we'll reconvene when they announce a ban on SUVs, won't we?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Motorcycle helmet law = nanny state.You 're dead wrong .
I ca n't emphasise the word " dead " enough here .
Emergency crews are paid for partly by monies collected from the individual in the form of an insurance , but mainly by monies collected from taxpayers .
So , to counter your statement : Emergency crews = nanny state Banning violent video games = nanny state.Not quite true , because you 're assuming the people exposed to violent video games have the choice that you would like for yourself .
However , we 're talking about children .
Yes , think of the children for a change , would you ?
Fine , if you can guarantee that no child will be exposed to this type of interactive pornography , you can have all the violence you want .
I 'm partial to a bit of GTA myself .
Obvious counter : Banning pornography = nanny state .
Seat belt law = nanny state.Absolutely wrong , for the same reasons as the motorcycle helmet law , and ( helpfully , thank you ) the reasons why videogames beyond a certain level of violence should continue to be unacceptable for sale .
Those affected by the lack of a seatbelt often do not have the luxury of choice : babies , children , etc .
I do n't give a flying flick about lone drivers -- that is , unless the fire crews and police have to stay later to pry the remaining bits from the grille of the semi which my taxes pay for .
Would you like your point escalated ?
Child restraints = nanny state .
There is a key difference between the items listed above and attempts to stop distracted driving.If you believe so , then you are misinterpreting the targets of the items.Items listed above are an attempt to protect us from ourselves.Bullshit .
That 's one side effect .
That is not the overriding reason why they become law.Distracted ( or drunk ) driving is an attempt to protect you or me from someone else , notably the nut texting her boyfriend who plows her 8 ton SUV into the side of your Prius.Or her Prius into the side of an 8 ton SUV .
It makes little difference , except the SUV will roll , the Prius will not.But I suppose we 'll reconvene when they announce a ban on SUVs , wo n't we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Motorcycle helmet law = nanny state.You're dead wrong.
I can't emphasise the word "dead" enough here.
Emergency crews are paid for partly by monies collected from the individual in the form of an insurance, but mainly by monies collected from taxpayers.
So, to counter your statement: Emergency crews = nanny state Banning violent video games = nanny state.Not quite true, because you're assuming the people exposed to violent video games have the choice that you would like for yourself.
However, we're talking about children.
Yes, think of the children for a change, would you?
Fine, if you can guarantee that no child will be exposed to this type of interactive pornography, you can have all the violence you want.
I'm partial to a bit of GTA myself.
Obvious counter: Banning pornography = nanny state.
Seat belt law = nanny state.Absolutely wrong, for the same reasons as the motorcycle helmet law, and (helpfully, thank you) the reasons why videogames beyond a certain level of violence should continue to be unacceptable for sale.
Those affected by the lack of a seatbelt often do not have the luxury of choice: babies, children, etc.
I don't give a flying flick about lone drivers -- that is, unless the fire crews and police have to stay later to pry the remaining bits from the grille of the semi which my taxes pay for.
Would you like your point escalated?
Child restraints = nanny state.
There is a key difference between the items listed above and attempts to stop distracted driving.If you believe so, then you are misinterpreting the targets of the items.Items listed above are an attempt to protect us from ourselves.Bullshit.
That's one side effect.
That is not the overriding reason why they become law.Distracted (or drunk) driving is an attempt to protect you or me from someone else, notably the nut texting her boyfriend who plows her 8 ton SUV into the side of your Prius.Or her Prius into the side of an 8 ton SUV.
It makes little difference, except the SUV will roll, the Prius will not.But I suppose we'll reconvene when they announce a ban on SUVs, won't we?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982934</id>
	<title>Yes, it is.</title>
	<author>silanea</author>
	<datestamp>1257018960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.insurance.com/auto-insurance/safety/study-shows-cell-phone-users-more-prone-to-accidents.aspx" title="insurance.com">Yes, it is.</a> [insurance.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is .
[ insurance.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Yes, it is.
[insurance.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982706</id>
	<title>Here's a high-tech cure for distracted driving</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1257018300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want a high tech cure for distracted driving?</p><p>Here's one: <b>Put down the ham sandwich, makeup kit, and cell phone and pay attention to the road!</b></p><p>Here endeth the lesson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want a high tech cure for distracted driving ? Here 's one : Put down the ham sandwich , makeup kit , and cell phone and pay attention to the road ! Here endeth the lesson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want a high tech cure for distracted driving?Here's one: Put down the ham sandwich, makeup kit, and cell phone and pay attention to the road!Here endeth the lesson.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982776</id>
	<title>Re:Why bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257018480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?</p></div></blockquote><p>It never occurred to you that just because nobody died in the accident that doesn't mean there weren't other consequences?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what exactly is the problem they 're trying to solve ? It never occurred to you that just because nobody died in the accident that does n't mean there were n't other consequences ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what exactly is the problem they're trying to solve?It never occurred to you that just because nobody died in the accident that doesn't mean there weren't other consequences?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984208</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257022620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>keep your pimp hand strong, brother!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>keep your pimp hand strong , brother !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>keep your pimp hand strong, brother!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982670</id>
	<title>Re:Steering wheel spike</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257018180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What we have done is made driving so easy and effortless that people feel free to do other tasks. All this stability and traction control have just added to the feeling of control. Adding even more safeguards is just going to let people do more other activities.</p></div><p>Sure. But this just amounts to saying "each modification to the driving experience has pros and cons". Adding traction control, for instance, has the pro of making driving in general smoother and safer, but the con of making people somewhat over-confident and less focused on driving. Yet, as long as the number of lives saved due to the better handling outweighs the number of lives lost from drivers being slightly less attentive, it's still a net gain and a worthy feature to have on vehicles.<br> <br>

As far as I know, the statistics bear out that the enhancements to vehicles (from airbags to handling) we've implemented over the years have done more good than harm, with respect to safety.<br> <br>

Which is why it is fairly rationale to keep adding more safety features and handling features, which make cars easier to drive and (on average) safer... while simultaneously taking measures to keep drivers focused on the act of driving.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we have done is made driving so easy and effortless that people feel free to do other tasks .
All this stability and traction control have just added to the feeling of control .
Adding even more safeguards is just going to let people do more other activities.Sure .
But this just amounts to saying " each modification to the driving experience has pros and cons " .
Adding traction control , for instance , has the pro of making driving in general smoother and safer , but the con of making people somewhat over-confident and less focused on driving .
Yet , as long as the number of lives saved due to the better handling outweighs the number of lives lost from drivers being slightly less attentive , it 's still a net gain and a worthy feature to have on vehicles .
As far as I know , the statistics bear out that the enhancements to vehicles ( from airbags to handling ) we 've implemented over the years have done more good than harm , with respect to safety .
Which is why it is fairly rationale to keep adding more safety features and handling features , which make cars easier to drive and ( on average ) safer... while simultaneously taking measures to keep drivers focused on the act of driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we have done is made driving so easy and effortless that people feel free to do other tasks.
All this stability and traction control have just added to the feeling of control.
Adding even more safeguards is just going to let people do more other activities.Sure.
But this just amounts to saying "each modification to the driving experience has pros and cons".
Adding traction control, for instance, has the pro of making driving in general smoother and safer, but the con of making people somewhat over-confident and less focused on driving.
Yet, as long as the number of lives saved due to the better handling outweighs the number of lives lost from drivers being slightly less attentive, it's still a net gain and a worthy feature to have on vehicles.
As far as I know, the statistics bear out that the enhancements to vehicles (from airbags to handling) we've implemented over the years have done more good than harm, with respect to safety.
Which is why it is fairly rationale to keep adding more safety features and handling features, which make cars easier to drive and (on average) safer... while simultaneously taking measures to keep drivers focused on the act of driving.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984702</id>
	<title>Re-engage the driver.</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1256981100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Driver distraction is not the problem, it is a lack of engagement in the task of driving. Most vehicles on the road today are sensory deprivation tanks. It's far to easy to switch your brain off, far to easy to drive with one hand fiddle with the sat nav and other things.
<br> <br>
If you've driven a 3-ton SUV these days the massive inertia is well masked by soft high-riding suspension and steering that isn't connected to anything. The brake pedal is so light you don't really grasp what it takes to bring something like that to a stop. So instead of driving such a road going tank with more care and more margin for error since it is so much more likely to kill you or someone else, this is why you drive like an idiot at 80mph while talking on the cellphone in such a vehicle, because over and above a tiny econobox it doesn't feel as unsafe as it actually is.
<br> <br>
Something you would not have done in the days of unassited steering and braking. In those days cars would shake and rattle and feel like they are coming apart at 80mph, it would have had you clinging on for dear life.
<br> <br>
Even today if you agressive modify a modern car for racing it will regain a sense of speed. Excluding suspension changes, it's sound deadening materials and other NVH reduction measures that is the primary difference.
<br> <br>
One thing I found about going to sports car over a family sedan is I started driving with both hands on the wheel.
<br> <br>
They want technological soultion to distracted driving?<br>
1. How about some steering wheel feedback, some plausible pedal feedback and a stiffer progressive spring on the throttle (one of the first modifications I do on any car). How about stripping out all the heavy sound deadening and replacing it with active noise cancelation that decreases or shuts off when you exceed the speed limit or start driving like a idiot.<br>2.Watch the road toll come down.<br> <br>
Opps<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I forgot the ettiquette here: <br> 3. ??? <br> 4. Profit</htmltext>
<tokenext>Driver distraction is not the problem , it is a lack of engagement in the task of driving .
Most vehicles on the road today are sensory deprivation tanks .
It 's far to easy to switch your brain off , far to easy to drive with one hand fiddle with the sat nav and other things .
If you 've driven a 3-ton SUV these days the massive inertia is well masked by soft high-riding suspension and steering that is n't connected to anything .
The brake pedal is so light you do n't really grasp what it takes to bring something like that to a stop .
So instead of driving such a road going tank with more care and more margin for error since it is so much more likely to kill you or someone else , this is why you drive like an idiot at 80mph while talking on the cellphone in such a vehicle , because over and above a tiny econobox it does n't feel as unsafe as it actually is .
Something you would not have done in the days of unassited steering and braking .
In those days cars would shake and rattle and feel like they are coming apart at 80mph , it would have had you clinging on for dear life .
Even today if you agressive modify a modern car for racing it will regain a sense of speed .
Excluding suspension changes , it 's sound deadening materials and other NVH reduction measures that is the primary difference .
One thing I found about going to sports car over a family sedan is I started driving with both hands on the wheel .
They want technological soultion to distracted driving ?
1. How about some steering wheel feedback , some plausible pedal feedback and a stiffer progressive spring on the throttle ( one of the first modifications I do on any car ) .
How about stripping out all the heavy sound deadening and replacing it with active noise cancelation that decreases or shuts off when you exceed the speed limit or start driving like a idiot.2.Watch the road toll come down .
Opps ... I forgot the ettiquette here : 3 .
? ? ? 4 .
Profit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Driver distraction is not the problem, it is a lack of engagement in the task of driving.
Most vehicles on the road today are sensory deprivation tanks.
It's far to easy to switch your brain off, far to easy to drive with one hand fiddle with the sat nav and other things.
If you've driven a 3-ton SUV these days the massive inertia is well masked by soft high-riding suspension and steering that isn't connected to anything.
The brake pedal is so light you don't really grasp what it takes to bring something like that to a stop.
So instead of driving such a road going tank with more care and more margin for error since it is so much more likely to kill you or someone else, this is why you drive like an idiot at 80mph while talking on the cellphone in such a vehicle, because over and above a tiny econobox it doesn't feel as unsafe as it actually is.
Something you would not have done in the days of unassited steering and braking.
In those days cars would shake and rattle and feel like they are coming apart at 80mph, it would have had you clinging on for dear life.
Even today if you agressive modify a modern car for racing it will regain a sense of speed.
Excluding suspension changes, it's sound deadening materials and other NVH reduction measures that is the primary difference.
One thing I found about going to sports car over a family sedan is I started driving with both hands on the wheel.
They want technological soultion to distracted driving?
1. How about some steering wheel feedback, some plausible pedal feedback and a stiffer progressive spring on the throttle (one of the first modifications I do on any car).
How about stripping out all the heavy sound deadening and replacing it with active noise cancelation that decreases or shuts off when you exceed the speed limit or start driving like a idiot.2.Watch the road toll come down.
Opps ... I forgot the ettiquette here:  3.
???  4.
Profit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983044</id>
	<title>Re:Steering wheel spike</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1257019260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All your spike would do is give him a convenient place to put the sandwich after he finished making it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All your spike would do is give him a convenient place to put the sandwich after he finished making it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All your spike would do is give him a convenient place to put the sandwich after he finished making it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986198</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1256985420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I've asked repeatedly, as politely as I can</i></p><p>There's your problem.  If a passenger's behavior is causing you to drive unsafely, a simple "SHUT THE FUCK UP" is effective and appropriate.  If that doesn't work, don't give them rides anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've asked repeatedly , as politely as I canThere 's your problem .
If a passenger 's behavior is causing you to drive unsafely , a simple " SHUT THE FUCK UP " is effective and appropriate .
If that does n't work , do n't give them rides anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've asked repeatedly, as politely as I canThere's your problem.
If a passenger's behavior is causing you to drive unsafely, a simple "SHUT THE FUCK UP" is effective and appropriate.
If that doesn't work, don't give them rides anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982760</id>
	<title>Ummmmm.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257018480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the fatality rate is down because cars are safer to crash in?</p><p>The real question is has the *accident* rate gone down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the fatality rate is down because cars are safer to crash in ? The real question is has the * accident * rate gone down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the fatality rate is down because cars are safer to crash in?The real question is has the *accident* rate gone down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985354</id>
	<title>Distracting behavior</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1256982960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"... will improve outreach efforts to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving, talking on cell phones while driving, and other distracting behavior that can lead to deadly accidents."</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean like <b>having passengers in the vehicle</b> who still possess tongues?</p><p>I'd love to see how they argue their way out of discouraging passengers when they're discouraging/prohibiting everything else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... will improve outreach efforts to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving , talking on cell phones while driving , and other distracting behavior that can lead to deadly accidents .
" You mean like having passengers in the vehicle who still possess tongues ? I 'd love to see how they argue their way out of discouraging passengers when they 're discouraging/prohibiting everything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... will improve outreach efforts to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving, talking on cell phones while driving, and other distracting behavior that can lead to deadly accidents.
"You mean like having passengers in the vehicle who still possess tongues?I'd love to see how they argue their way out of discouraging passengers when they're discouraging/prohibiting everything else.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982424</id>
	<title>Re:Steering wheel spike</title>
	<author>jockeys</author>
	<datestamp>1257017580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> it is human nature to self distract if a task does not require attention.</p></div><p>
That is a fantastic (and quotable) summary of the problem here.  When cars were new a hundred years ago, driving one took specialized clothing, skills and was considered difficult.<br> <br>Now every 15 year old kid learns it at school (where I live, anyhow) and it's far easier.  Naturally, people pay less attention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is human nature to self distract if a task does not require attention .
That is a fantastic ( and quotable ) summary of the problem here .
When cars were new a hundred years ago , driving one took specialized clothing , skills and was considered difficult .
Now every 15 year old kid learns it at school ( where I live , anyhow ) and it 's far easier .
Naturally , people pay less attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> it is human nature to self distract if a task does not require attention.
That is a fantastic (and quotable) summary of the problem here.
When cars were new a hundred years ago, driving one took specialized clothing, skills and was considered difficult.
Now every 15 year old kid learns it at school (where I live, anyhow) and it's far easier.
Naturally, people pay less attention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984812</id>
	<title>Re:Drive, damn you. Drive!</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1256981340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right. We should pass laws based on anecdotal evidence. "I am truely sorry for your lots" but there were bad drivers before cell phones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
We should pass laws based on anecdotal evidence .
" I am truely sorry for your lots " but there were bad drivers before cell phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
We should pass laws based on anecdotal evidence.
"I am truely sorry for your lots" but there were bad drivers before cell phones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982184</id>
	<title>Simple</title>
	<author>rehtonAesoohC</author>
	<datestamp>1257016980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remove the distractions!<br> <br>The government could pass a bill requiring auto makers to turn most cars into partial <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farraday\_cage" title="wikipedia.org">Farraday Cages</a> [wikipedia.org].<br> <br>This would potentially block people's cell phone or other portable distractions, and allow them to concentrate solely on the road. I'm not sure how well it would work with the windshield and all, but the reality is that the only viable solution to distracted driving is to remove the distractions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remove the distractions !
The government could pass a bill requiring auto makers to turn most cars into partial Farraday Cages [ wikipedia.org ] .
This would potentially block people 's cell phone or other portable distractions , and allow them to concentrate solely on the road .
I 'm not sure how well it would work with the windshield and all , but the reality is that the only viable solution to distracted driving is to remove the distractions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remove the distractions!
The government could pass a bill requiring auto makers to turn most cars into partial Farraday Cages [wikipedia.org].
This would potentially block people's cell phone or other portable distractions, and allow them to concentrate solely on the road.
I'm not sure how well it would work with the windshield and all, but the reality is that the only viable solution to distracted driving is to remove the distractions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982618</id>
	<title>Re:Simple</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1257018060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>California is trying to do just that.  The legislation was supposed to mandate a coating on windows to reduce accidents caused by the sun but it also had the effect of blocking cell phone signals too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>California is trying to do just that .
The legislation was supposed to mandate a coating on windows to reduce accidents caused by the sun but it also had the effect of blocking cell phone signals too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>California is trying to do just that.
The legislation was supposed to mandate a coating on windows to reduce accidents caused by the sun but it also had the effect of blocking cell phone signals too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982526</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>qoncept</author>
	<datestamp>1257017820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Asked politely and it didn't work? Have you asked with a fist?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asked politely and it did n't work ?
Have you asked with a fist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asked politely and it didn't work?
Have you asked with a fist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984130</id>
	<title>Get rid of automobiles</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1257022380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>replace it with public rail transport, more efficient and more convenient in the modern age.<br> <br>
Driving sucks, driving in traffic sucks even more.<br> <br>
The automobile is soo last century.</htmltext>
<tokenext>replace it with public rail transport , more efficient and more convenient in the modern age .
Driving sucks , driving in traffic sucks even more .
The automobile is soo last century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>replace it with public rail transport, more efficient and more convenient in the modern age.
Driving sucks, driving in traffic sucks even more.
The automobile is soo last century.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982500</id>
	<title>Re:How about a special license and exam?</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1257017760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah yes, the "I can do this even if you can't" argument. Just like the "I can drink and drive, really I can".  <br> <br>
This argument inevitably fails over time.  Yes, you can text (or drink or watch TV or $random\_distraction) <i>most</i> of the time.  After all, look at all the idiots doing so each and every day.  You don't always get into to trouble but clearly your <i>risk</i> of plowing into my ass increases with every stupid decision you make.  As dose my risk of getting clobbered.  Sooner or later, statistics wins.<br> <br>
Get over it.  You're a number, just one point in the graph.   And I want each and every one of you tiny little points focusing on driving.  Tweet later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , the " I can do this even if you ca n't " argument .
Just like the " I can drink and drive , really I can " .
This argument inevitably fails over time .
Yes , you can text ( or drink or watch TV or $ random \ _distraction ) most of the time .
After all , look at all the idiots doing so each and every day .
You do n't always get into to trouble but clearly your risk of plowing into my ass increases with every stupid decision you make .
As dose my risk of getting clobbered .
Sooner or later , statistics wins .
Get over it .
You 're a number , just one point in the graph .
And I want each and every one of you tiny little points focusing on driving .
Tweet later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, the "I can do this even if you can't" argument.
Just like the "I can drink and drive, really I can".
This argument inevitably fails over time.
Yes, you can text (or drink or watch TV or $random\_distraction) most of the time.
After all, look at all the idiots doing so each and every day.
You don't always get into to trouble but clearly your risk of plowing into my ass increases with every stupid decision you make.
As dose my risk of getting clobbered.
Sooner or later, statistics wins.
Get over it.
You're a number, just one point in the graph.
And I want each and every one of you tiny little points focusing on driving.
Tweet later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982800</id>
	<title>I have the cure</title>
	<author>TimeElf1</author>
	<datestamp>1257018540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just take away, cell phones, the radio, tape player, CD's, and the iPod and have everyone get 8 hours of sleep. No need to waste billions of taxpayer's money, looking for a high-tech <b>cure</b> when a low-tech solution will work just as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just take away , cell phones , the radio , tape player , CD 's , and the iPod and have everyone get 8 hours of sleep .
No need to waste billions of taxpayer 's money , looking for a high-tech cure when a low-tech solution will work just as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just take away, cell phones, the radio, tape player, CD's, and the iPod and have everyone get 8 hours of sleep.
No need to waste billions of taxpayer's money, looking for a high-tech cure when a low-tech solution will work just as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982264</id>
	<title>There are already a few (crappy) options</title>
	<author>Shane112358</author>
	<datestamp>1257017160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://consumerist.com/5393720/3-cellphone-apps-to-block-texting-while-driving" title="consumerist.com" rel="nofollow">http://consumerist.com/5393720/3-cellphone-apps-to-block-texting-while-driving</a> [consumerist.com]

I think the better long-term solution is to have sensors built in the car that triangulate the phone's position in space, and locks out certain phone functions if it determines the driver is trying to use the phone.  It checks the data against the speed of the car and the weight on all the seats, so the passenger could still use a phone, for example.

But of course, you could always put a big chunk of lead on the passenger seat and then lean over and reach to that side of the car to send a text message...which doesn't sound very safe either...</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //consumerist.com/5393720/3-cellphone-apps-to-block-texting-while-driving [ consumerist.com ] I think the better long-term solution is to have sensors built in the car that triangulate the phone 's position in space , and locks out certain phone functions if it determines the driver is trying to use the phone .
It checks the data against the speed of the car and the weight on all the seats , so the passenger could still use a phone , for example .
But of course , you could always put a big chunk of lead on the passenger seat and then lean over and reach to that side of the car to send a text message...which does n't sound very safe either.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://consumerist.com/5393720/3-cellphone-apps-to-block-texting-while-driving [consumerist.com]

I think the better long-term solution is to have sensors built in the car that triangulate the phone's position in space, and locks out certain phone functions if it determines the driver is trying to use the phone.
It checks the data against the speed of the car and the weight on all the seats, so the passenger could still use a phone, for example.
But of course, you could always put a big chunk of lead on the passenger seat and then lean over and reach to that side of the car to send a text message...which doesn't sound very safe either...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983730</id>
	<title>Re:Simple</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1257021180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get dressed while driving.  You wouldn't believe the complaints I get from the rest of the carpool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get dressed while driving .
You would n't believe the complaints I get from the rest of the carpool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get dressed while driving.
You wouldn't believe the complaints I get from the rest of the carpool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985488</id>
	<title>Techno-Simple</title>
	<author>stkpogo</author>
	<datestamp>1256983380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just make the distracto gizmos not work if they are moving more than 5 MPH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just make the distracto gizmos not work if they are moving more than 5 MPH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just make the distracto gizmos not work if they are moving more than 5 MPH</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982600</id>
	<title>self driving cars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257018000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>self driving cars.</p><p>take the on-ramp.<br>enter your desired exit number on the keypad.</p><p>nap, text, whatever.</p><p>if the alarm goes off b/c the car is having trouble tracking the road, you either have to indicate you're back (hands on the wheel, deactivated alarm) or the call pulls over.</p><p>exit on ramp.  same deal as the problem alarm, it pulls over at the exit or it reverts control to driver for normal driving on non-highways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>self driving cars.take the on-ramp.enter your desired exit number on the keypad.nap , text , whatever.if the alarm goes off b/c the car is having trouble tracking the road , you either have to indicate you 're back ( hands on the wheel , deactivated alarm ) or the call pulls over.exit on ramp .
same deal as the problem alarm , it pulls over at the exit or it reverts control to driver for normal driving on non-highways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>self driving cars.take the on-ramp.enter your desired exit number on the keypad.nap, text, whatever.if the alarm goes off b/c the car is having trouble tracking the road, you either have to indicate you're back (hands on the wheel, deactivated alarm) or the call pulls over.exit on ramp.
same deal as the problem alarm, it pulls over at the exit or it reverts control to driver for normal driving on non-highways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988066</id>
	<title>The solution is simple</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1256992860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>design a computer that can drive a car for a person. Pass a law that all cars must have the computer driver device installed in them. When a person gets drunk or sleepy they turn on the computer driver autopilot and set a destination and it plots out the safest route and drives there for them. The computer driver will have cameras on the cars with heat sensing, motion sensing, and light intensifying features to make sure it doesn't hit anyone or anything and the database will be updated via satellite for the GPS data, stop light data, speed limits, etc.</p><p>You already have smart GPS devices the next step would be a computer based GPS system that can drive a car when the driver is passed out, drunk, sleepy, or distracted in some way. Just have it switch to autopilot when the driver is having problems controlling the car or their eyes are closed shut for a certain period of time or some other sensor to indicate the driver cannot drive a car properly.</p><p>I am sure some politician will eventually pass a law that requires all cars be driven by computer and not human beings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>design a computer that can drive a car for a person .
Pass a law that all cars must have the computer driver device installed in them .
When a person gets drunk or sleepy they turn on the computer driver autopilot and set a destination and it plots out the safest route and drives there for them .
The computer driver will have cameras on the cars with heat sensing , motion sensing , and light intensifying features to make sure it does n't hit anyone or anything and the database will be updated via satellite for the GPS data , stop light data , speed limits , etc.You already have smart GPS devices the next step would be a computer based GPS system that can drive a car when the driver is passed out , drunk , sleepy , or distracted in some way .
Just have it switch to autopilot when the driver is having problems controlling the car or their eyes are closed shut for a certain period of time or some other sensor to indicate the driver can not drive a car properly.I am sure some politician will eventually pass a law that requires all cars be driven by computer and not human beings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>design a computer that can drive a car for a person.
Pass a law that all cars must have the computer driver device installed in them.
When a person gets drunk or sleepy they turn on the computer driver autopilot and set a destination and it plots out the safest route and drives there for them.
The computer driver will have cameras on the cars with heat sensing, motion sensing, and light intensifying features to make sure it doesn't hit anyone or anything and the database will be updated via satellite for the GPS data, stop light data, speed limits, etc.You already have smart GPS devices the next step would be a computer based GPS system that can drive a car when the driver is passed out, drunk, sleepy, or distracted in some way.
Just have it switch to autopilot when the driver is having problems controlling the car or their eyes are closed shut for a certain period of time or some other sensor to indicate the driver cannot drive a car properly.I am sure some politician will eventually pass a law that requires all cars be driven by computer and not human beings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982634</id>
	<title>Re:Is it even necessary?</title>
	<author>RealErmine</author>
	<datestamp>1257018120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If not, then this just sounds like bandwagon-jumping.</p></div><p>Maybe if we all gave up our cars and rode the bandwagon there would be no more traffic accidents.</p><p>We're putting the bandwagon back together!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If not , then this just sounds like bandwagon-jumping.Maybe if we all gave up our cars and rode the bandwagon there would be no more traffic accidents.We 're putting the bandwagon back together !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If not, then this just sounds like bandwagon-jumping.Maybe if we all gave up our cars and rode the bandwagon there would be no more traffic accidents.We're putting the bandwagon back together!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29989646</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1257001020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dumb idea.  "AHHHH! I think you broke my cheekbone." *SOB* "Please, I need to go to the hospital." *Cry* "Can I at least have something to keep the blood from dripping everywhere?" *Whine* "I'm calling my sister to stay with her until I can get a divorce you bastard" *Sob uncontrollably*</p><p>She whined so fucking much that I almost got into an accident.</p><p>(For the record, I am kidding, I have never and will never hit my wife.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb idea .
" AHHHH ! I think you broke my cheekbone .
" * SOB * " Please , I need to go to the hospital .
" * Cry * " Can I at least have something to keep the blood from dripping everywhere ?
" * Whine * " I 'm calling my sister to stay with her until I can get a divorce you bastard " * Sob uncontrollably * She whined so fucking much that I almost got into an accident .
( For the record , I am kidding , I have never and will never hit my wife .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumb idea.
"AHHHH! I think you broke my cheekbone.
" *SOB* "Please, I need to go to the hospital.
" *Cry* "Can I at least have something to keep the blood from dripping everywhere?
" *Whine* "I'm calling my sister to stay with her until I can get a divorce you bastard" *Sob uncontrollably*She whined so fucking much that I almost got into an accident.
(For the record, I am kidding, I have never and will never hit my wife.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983804</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257021360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Build trains so people can get places without having to pay attention to their travel.  America would get about 2 more hours each day to spend as it pleases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Build trains so people can get places without having to pay attention to their travel .
America would get about 2 more hours each day to spend as it pleases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Build trains so people can get places without having to pay attention to their travel.
America would get about 2 more hours each day to spend as it pleases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983112</id>
	<title>Re:A high tech solution to keep my wife quiet??!!</title>
	<author>Prototerm</author>
	<datestamp>1257019440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There *is* a solution: It's called Duct Tape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There * is * a solution : It 's called Duct Tape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There *is* a solution: It's called Duct Tape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982338</id>
	<title>Not enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition to the spike, we add an airhorn under the dash that randomly blares.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to the spike , we add an airhorn under the dash that randomly blares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to the spike, we add an airhorn under the dash that randomly blares.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982876</id>
	<title>Eh, that is what early cars WERE.</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1257018780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And NOBODY cared in early cars that the steering wheels and control knobs were sharp metal spikes ready to impale a driver who didn't even have the option of a seatbelt. In fact, seatbelts it was argued by someone in a desert would kill more people because it would take them longer to escape if their car went into water, the driver remarked, surrounded by nothing but sand for hundreds of miles in any direction.
</p><p>People are idiots, no solution has yet been found to this dilemma.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And NOBODY cared in early cars that the steering wheels and control knobs were sharp metal spikes ready to impale a driver who did n't even have the option of a seatbelt .
In fact , seatbelts it was argued by someone in a desert would kill more people because it would take them longer to escape if their car went into water , the driver remarked , surrounded by nothing but sand for hundreds of miles in any direction .
People are idiots , no solution has yet been found to this dilemma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And NOBODY cared in early cars that the steering wheels and control knobs were sharp metal spikes ready to impale a driver who didn't even have the option of a seatbelt.
In fact, seatbelts it was argued by someone in a desert would kill more people because it would take them longer to escape if their car went into water, the driver remarked, surrounded by nothing but sand for hundreds of miles in any direction.
People are idiots, no solution has yet been found to this dilemma.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982588</id>
	<title>Re:audio/video</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1257018000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about non-stop playing gory video clips of people dying in car crashes? We could throw in some screams as well.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSNVAA61MmM" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSNVAA61MmM</a> [youtube.com] It has screams as well. The focus is on the aftermath, 'cos that's what the survivors have to live with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about non-stop playing gory video clips of people dying in car crashes ?
We could throw in some screams as well .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = BSNVAA61MmM [ youtube.com ] It has screams as well .
The focus is on the aftermath , 'cos that 's what the survivors have to live with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about non-stop playing gory video clips of people dying in car crashes?
We could throw in some screams as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSNVAA61MmM [youtube.com] It has screams as well.
The focus is on the aftermath, 'cos that's what the survivors have to live with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29990714</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the cure</title>
	<author>WillDraven</author>
	<datestamp>1257008940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally think the "benefit" of this law is that it gives law enforcement an excuse to pull you over so they can "smell [pot|alcohol|etc.]" and search your car. At least that's how they seem to use it around here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally think the " benefit " of this law is that it gives law enforcement an excuse to pull you over so they can " smell [ pot | alcohol | etc .
] " and search your car .
At least that 's how they seem to use it around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally think the "benefit" of this law is that it gives law enforcement an excuse to pull you over so they can "smell [pot|alcohol|etc.
]" and search your car.
At least that's how they seem to use it around here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984336</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29991150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29997760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29987986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29994982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.30002336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29997404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29992168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29989646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29990714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.30007252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_1813239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29987986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29997404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983188
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988622
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29994982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.30007252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29987284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29992168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29989646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29991150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.30002336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29988988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29997760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29983368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982700
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29986344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982958
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984106
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984336
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29990714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982692
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29984180
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29985704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_1813239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_1813239.29982706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
