<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_29_2054214</id>
	<title>Phone and Text Bans On Drivers Shown Ineffective</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264764600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>shmG writes to share news of a recent study on the impact of laws which ban the use of cell phones while driving. There appears to be <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100129/laws-banning-cellphone-use-while-driving-have-no-effect-study.htm">no reduction in accidents</a> as a result of these laws.  <i>"The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York, Washington DC, Connecticut, and California &mdash; all states with currently enacted roadway text bans.  Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted, [although] there were less people using devices while driving. An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries. Also independent studies done by universities have shown correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>shmG writes to share news of a recent study on the impact of laws which ban the use of cell phones while driving .
There appears to be no reduction in accidents as a result of these laws .
" The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York , Washington DC , Connecticut , and California    all states with currently enacted roadway text bans .
Despite those laws , monthly fluctuations in crash rates did n't change after bans were enacted , [ although ] there were less people using devices while driving .
An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries .
Also independent studies done by universities have shown correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shmG writes to share news of a recent study on the impact of laws which ban the use of cell phones while driving.
There appears to be no reduction in accidents as a result of these laws.
"The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York, Washington DC, Connecticut, and California — all states with currently enacted roadway text bans.
Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted, [although] there were less people using devices while driving.
An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries.
Also independent studies done by universities have shown correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958870</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264781340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're the second or third high-modded post making the liability point.</p><p>It's not a bad point, but liability is not immutable.  Vaccines could "never" be profitable because of liability--so, liability laws were changed to exempt vaccines.  Despite the health-care dysfunction, "acts of Congress" happen all the time.</p><p>I don't know if 40,000 deaths a year justifies having the government indemnify manufacturers, but if the technology is ever proven it could well happen.  If it does, the roll-out path would probably involve people first getting comfortable with technology that doesn't drive, but does prevent collisions--like computers that prevent you from rear-ending someone, alredy demoed at car shows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're the second or third high-modded post making the liability point.It 's not a bad point , but liability is not immutable .
Vaccines could " never " be profitable because of liability--so , liability laws were changed to exempt vaccines .
Despite the health-care dysfunction , " acts of Congress " happen all the time.I do n't know if 40,000 deaths a year justifies having the government indemnify manufacturers , but if the technology is ever proven it could well happen .
If it does , the roll-out path would probably involve people first getting comfortable with technology that does n't drive , but does prevent collisions--like computers that prevent you from rear-ending someone , alredy demoed at car shows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're the second or third high-modded post making the liability point.It's not a bad point, but liability is not immutable.
Vaccines could "never" be profitable because of liability--so, liability laws were changed to exempt vaccines.
Despite the health-care dysfunction, "acts of Congress" happen all the time.I don't know if 40,000 deaths a year justifies having the government indemnify manufacturers, but if the technology is ever proven it could well happen.
If it does, the roll-out path would probably involve people first getting comfortable with technology that doesn't drive, but does prevent collisions--like computers that prevent you from rear-ending someone, alredy demoed at car shows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957686</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264771980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars. Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.</i></p><p>That's not necessary. You can already track the location of phones, which means you can track their speed of motion. Tax people a penny per minute for every MPH above a certain speed -- say, ten miles per hour -- that occurs on a public road.  A person going 50 MPH and yapping would pay 40 cents per minute. That would cut down on the chat rather quickly.</p><p>Of course, you won't be able to distinguish between yapping drivers and passengers, but it's certainly cheaper and more near-term than self-driving cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars .
Our communications technology is at a point where it 's a serious waste of a human being 's time to be driving , and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.That 's not necessary .
You can already track the location of phones , which means you can track their speed of motion .
Tax people a penny per minute for every MPH above a certain speed -- say , ten miles per hour -- that occurs on a public road .
A person going 50 MPH and yapping would pay 40 cents per minute .
That would cut down on the chat rather quickly.Of course , you wo n't be able to distinguish between yapping drivers and passengers , but it 's certainly cheaper and more near-term than self-driving cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars.
Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.That's not necessary.
You can already track the location of phones, which means you can track their speed of motion.
Tax people a penny per minute for every MPH above a certain speed -- say, ten miles per hour -- that occurs on a public road.
A person going 50 MPH and yapping would pay 40 cents per minute.
That would cut down on the chat rather quickly.Of course, you won't be able to distinguish between yapping drivers and passengers, but it's certainly cheaper and more near-term than self-driving cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957964</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>dintlu</author>
	<datestamp>1264773720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll see self-driving cars within a decade of cancer being cured.</p><p>If the only major cause of death is car accidents, people will wake up to the danger and accept automation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll see self-driving cars within a decade of cancer being cured.If the only major cause of death is car accidents , people will wake up to the danger and accept automation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll see self-driving cars within a decade of cancer being cured.If the only major cause of death is car accidents, people will wake up to the danger and accept automation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959180</id>
	<title>here's my take on it</title>
	<author>buddyglass</author>
	<datestamp>1264783860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If police departments have to make money by ticketing people, I'd rather they do so by ticketing texters/talkers than by ticketing speeders.  If only they'd do the former, and not the latter. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If police departments have to make money by ticketing people , I 'd rather they do so by ticketing texters/talkers than by ticketing speeders .
If only they 'd do the former , and not the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If police departments have to make money by ticketing people, I'd rather they do so by ticketing texters/talkers than by ticketing speeders.
If only they'd do the former, and not the latter. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958112</id>
	<title>Culpability is culpability</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1264774860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it really f-ing matter whether you cause an accident because you were distracted by (a) holding a cellphone to your ear, (b) talking hands-free, (c) talking to a passenger, (d) fighting to control your children, (e) being drunk into a stupor, (f) being sleep deprived to the point of being a zombie, or (g) just daydreaming?</p><p>In terms of basic culpability, the answer is NO, it doesn't matter.  You still caused an accident, regardless what particular behavior distracted you in the first place.  Must we actually have specific laws describing every specific behavior as "criminal", when (a) those behaviors are only PRECURSORS to an actual criminal act and not truly criminal themselves and (b) we already have laws to handle murder, maiming, vehicular manslaughter, etc.?</p><p>This is what our elected legislators do to justify their existence?  I want back all my tax dollars that went into their pension fund.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it really f-ing matter whether you cause an accident because you were distracted by ( a ) holding a cellphone to your ear , ( b ) talking hands-free , ( c ) talking to a passenger , ( d ) fighting to control your children , ( e ) being drunk into a stupor , ( f ) being sleep deprived to the point of being a zombie , or ( g ) just daydreaming ? In terms of basic culpability , the answer is NO , it does n't matter .
You still caused an accident , regardless what particular behavior distracted you in the first place .
Must we actually have specific laws describing every specific behavior as " criminal " , when ( a ) those behaviors are only PRECURSORS to an actual criminal act and not truly criminal themselves and ( b ) we already have laws to handle murder , maiming , vehicular manslaughter , etc .
? This is what our elected legislators do to justify their existence ?
I want back all my tax dollars that went into their pension fund .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it really f-ing matter whether you cause an accident because you were distracted by (a) holding a cellphone to your ear, (b) talking hands-free, (c) talking to a passenger, (d) fighting to control your children, (e) being drunk into a stupor, (f) being sleep deprived to the point of being a zombie, or (g) just daydreaming?In terms of basic culpability, the answer is NO, it doesn't matter.
You still caused an accident, regardless what particular behavior distracted you in the first place.
Must we actually have specific laws describing every specific behavior as "criminal", when (a) those behaviors are only PRECURSORS to an actual criminal act and not truly criminal themselves and (b) we already have laws to handle murder, maiming, vehicular manslaughter, etc.
?This is what our elected legislators do to justify their existence?
I want back all my tax dollars that went into their pension fund.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958902</id>
	<title>Re:Not much change here</title>
	<author>blackest\_k</author>
	<datestamp>1264781640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who rode motorcycles for years the assumption that any driver will make a safe/legal driving move is dangerous to your survival.</p><p>A better strategy is to look at the hazards and react and plan accordingly.<br>When I worked as a  courier in London the most dangerous times were from about 4 till 6 this is when the 9-5 office types and school moms hit the roads and drivers were less predictable.</p><p>Texting while driving seems rather stupid if your not sat stationary in traffic. Make a call if its that important, ideally hands free.</p><p>even better get your passenger to deal with calls or messages, which is also why you can't use movement to decide if a call or text is legal or safe.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who rode motorcycles for years the assumption that any driver will make a safe/legal driving move is dangerous to your survival.A better strategy is to look at the hazards and react and plan accordingly.When I worked as a courier in London the most dangerous times were from about 4 till 6 this is when the 9-5 office types and school moms hit the roads and drivers were less predictable.Texting while driving seems rather stupid if your not sat stationary in traffic .
Make a call if its that important , ideally hands free.even better get your passenger to deal with calls or messages , which is also why you ca n't use movement to decide if a call or text is legal or safe .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who rode motorcycles for years the assumption that any driver will make a safe/legal driving move is dangerous to your survival.A better strategy is to look at the hazards and react and plan accordingly.When I worked as a  courier in London the most dangerous times were from about 4 till 6 this is when the 9-5 office types and school moms hit the roads and drivers were less predictable.Texting while driving seems rather stupid if your not sat stationary in traffic.
Make a call if its that important, ideally hands free.even better get your passenger to deal with calls or messages, which is also why you can't use movement to decide if a call or text is legal or safe.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30960040</id>
	<title>Cause and Defect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264794960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"shmG writes to share that according to a recent study on the impact of laws banning the use of cell phones during driving, there appears to be no reduction in accidents as a result. "</p><p>They're doing it wrong. When the car detects a phone in operation it should go into Drunk Driver Simulation mode. Causing them to wreck sooner is getting Darwin in there as fast as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" shmG writes to share that according to a recent study on the impact of laws banning the use of cell phones during driving , there appears to be no reduction in accidents as a result .
" They 're doing it wrong .
When the car detects a phone in operation it should go into Drunk Driver Simulation mode .
Causing them to wreck sooner is getting Darwin in there as fast as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"shmG writes to share that according to a recent study on the impact of laws banning the use of cell phones during driving, there appears to be no reduction in accidents as a result.
"They're doing it wrong.
When the car detects a phone in operation it should go into Drunk Driver Simulation mode.
Causing them to wreck sooner is getting Darwin in there as fast as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957352</id>
	<title>[citation needed]</title>
	<author>raving griff</author>
	<datestamp>1264770000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"all though there were less people using devices while driving." [citation needed]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" all though there were less people using devices while driving .
" [ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"all though there were less people using devices while driving.
" [citation needed]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958330</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1264776420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law."</p><p>People babbling over trifles they survived nicely before constant electronic leashes were universally available are hardly acting from economic necessity.</p><p>"Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars."</p><p>If we externalize the costs then we can pretend they don't exist!</p><p>We'd be better off with cellphones contributing to crashes than attempting to safely maintain self-driving cars, let alone pay for the staggeringly complex technology. "Aircraft reliability" comes a price of expensive components and constant, professional, scheduled maintenance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Our communications technology is at a point where it 's a serious waste of a human being 's time to be driving , and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law .
" People babbling over trifles they survived nicely before constant electronic leashes were universally available are hardly acting from economic necessity .
" Personally , I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars .
" If we externalize the costs then we can pretend they do n't exist ! We 'd be better off with cellphones contributing to crashes than attempting to safely maintain self-driving cars , let alone pay for the staggeringly complex technology .
" Aircraft reliability " comes a price of expensive components and constant , professional , scheduled maintenance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.
"People babbling over trifles they survived nicely before constant electronic leashes were universally available are hardly acting from economic necessity.
"Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars.
"If we externalize the costs then we can pretend they don't exist!We'd be better off with cellphones contributing to crashes than attempting to safely maintain self-driving cars, let alone pay for the staggeringly complex technology.
"Aircraft reliability" comes a price of expensive components and constant, professional, scheduled maintenance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957488</id>
	<title>Breaking News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264770900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Smoking doesn't cause cancer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smoking does n't cause cancer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smoking doesn't cause cancer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957666</id>
	<title>Yahbut</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1264771860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Passing a law that makes using a phone while driving is not likely to decrease the incidence of using a phone while driving,</p><p>What it is likely to cause to happen is people will tend to lie more to say they weren't using the phone while driving.  So unless they have some method of spying on drivers to see what they're really doing, rather than relying on self-reports, the HLDI has no grounds to state "such laws have reduced hand-held phone use" or to draw any conclusions based on phone use from the study in TFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Passing a law that makes using a phone while driving is not likely to decrease the incidence of using a phone while driving,What it is likely to cause to happen is people will tend to lie more to say they were n't using the phone while driving .
So unless they have some method of spying on drivers to see what they 're really doing , rather than relying on self-reports , the HLDI has no grounds to state " such laws have reduced hand-held phone use " or to draw any conclusions based on phone use from the study in TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Passing a law that makes using a phone while driving is not likely to decrease the incidence of using a phone while driving,What it is likely to cause to happen is people will tend to lie more to say they weren't using the phone while driving.
So unless they have some method of spying on drivers to see what they're really doing, rather than relying on self-reports, the HLDI has no grounds to state "such laws have reduced hand-held phone use" or to draw any conclusions based on phone use from the study in TFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30968688</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1264969680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This doesn't surprise me too much. One interesting fact it does indicate is that the people who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who are in accidents.</i> <br> <br>People who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who drive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't surprise me too much .
One interesting fact it does indicate is that the people who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who are in accidents .
People who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't surprise me too much.
One interesting fact it does indicate is that the people who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who are in accidents.
People who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30966548</id>
	<title>Re:Self Driving cars, huh?</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1264855560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trains have a very limited number of sources and destinations.  You have to ride with a whole bunch of people you may not want to actually interact with in any way on a train.  They run on a schedule.  As a means of transportation, they are almost exactly, but not quite unlike cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trains have a very limited number of sources and destinations .
You have to ride with a whole bunch of people you may not want to actually interact with in any way on a train .
They run on a schedule .
As a means of transportation , they are almost exactly , but not quite unlike cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trains have a very limited number of sources and destinations.
You have to ride with a whole bunch of people you may not want to actually interact with in any way on a train.
They run on a schedule.
As a means of transportation, they are almost exactly, but not quite unlike cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958864</id>
	<title>Re:Time to repeal the laws then?</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1264781280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can sum up your post into two words: "knee jerk". As many people have pointed out already, the study certainly has not proved that the ban is and always will be ineffective. It just shows that, right now, people are still crashing just as often, but this will probably change as people get used to the idea that they can't use their phones while driving.</p><p>And besides, since you seem to implicitly trust studies, there was the original study(s) that said phones were dangerous while driving. Shouldn't your reaction be to find ways to make the ban more effective, rather than scrapping it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can sum up your post into two words : " knee jerk " .
As many people have pointed out already , the study certainly has not proved that the ban is and always will be ineffective .
It just shows that , right now , people are still crashing just as often , but this will probably change as people get used to the idea that they ca n't use their phones while driving.And besides , since you seem to implicitly trust studies , there was the original study ( s ) that said phones were dangerous while driving .
Should n't your reaction be to find ways to make the ban more effective , rather than scrapping it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can sum up your post into two words: "knee jerk".
As many people have pointed out already, the study certainly has not proved that the ban is and always will be ineffective.
It just shows that, right now, people are still crashing just as often, but this will probably change as people get used to the idea that they can't use their phones while driving.And besides, since you seem to implicitly trust studies, there was the original study(s) that said phones were dangerous while driving.
Shouldn't your reaction be to find ways to make the ban more effective, rather than scrapping it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30963860</id>
	<title>Re:Woman can't stop texting, wrecks 3 cars in 3 ye</title>
	<author>ccady</author>
	<datestamp>1264877880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has little to do with her texting.  It has to do with her decision to drive recklessly, where recklessness can be proven by the fact that she got into an accident.  You are going to write bad laws if you attempt to define all the possible things that can distract a driver.  (Driving with children. Driving a car that belongs to somebody else.  Driving  while sleepy.  Driving in snow or rain.)  All you need are the laws on the books.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has little to do with her texting .
It has to do with her decision to drive recklessly , where recklessness can be proven by the fact that she got into an accident .
You are going to write bad laws if you attempt to define all the possible things that can distract a driver .
( Driving with children .
Driving a car that belongs to somebody else .
Driving while sleepy .
Driving in snow or rain .
) All you need are the laws on the books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has little to do with her texting.
It has to do with her decision to drive recklessly, where recklessness can be proven by the fact that she got into an accident.
You are going to write bad laws if you attempt to define all the possible things that can distract a driver.
(Driving with children.
Driving a car that belongs to somebody else.
Driving  while sleepy.
Driving in snow or rain.
)  All you need are the laws on the books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30961638</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1264861980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Can you imagine the howl from GM if anybody managed<br>&gt; to seriously propose that GM be liable for car<br>&gt; accidents involving their vehicle?<br><br>What makes you think GM's going to still be around in 2025?<br><br>But yeah, robocars are legally impractical, because if even one robocar ever causes an accident (nevermind how many accidents they've prevented), the public outcry would be...  significant.<br><br>My proposal is that we ramp up the requirements to obtain and hold a driver's license.  Driver's licenses are dangerous in the wrong hands.  Stop handing them out like candy.  Make prospective drivers show that they can actually handle taking responsibility for the lives of everyone else on the road.  It'll never be perfect, but we should be doing a lot better than we are doing currently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Can you imagine the howl from GM if anybody managed &gt; to seriously propose that GM be liable for car &gt; accidents involving their vehicle ? What makes you think GM 's going to still be around in 2025 ? But yeah , robocars are legally impractical , because if even one robocar ever causes an accident ( nevermind how many accidents they 've prevented ) , the public outcry would be... significant.My proposal is that we ramp up the requirements to obtain and hold a driver 's license .
Driver 's licenses are dangerous in the wrong hands .
Stop handing them out like candy .
Make prospective drivers show that they can actually handle taking responsibility for the lives of everyone else on the road .
It 'll never be perfect , but we should be doing a lot better than we are doing currently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Can you imagine the howl from GM if anybody managed&gt; to seriously propose that GM be liable for car&gt; accidents involving their vehicle?What makes you think GM's going to still be around in 2025?But yeah, robocars are legally impractical, because if even one robocar ever causes an accident (nevermind how many accidents they've prevented), the public outcry would be...  significant.My proposal is that we ramp up the requirements to obtain and hold a driver's license.
Driver's licenses are dangerous in the wrong hands.
Stop handing them out like candy.
Make prospective drivers show that they can actually handle taking responsibility for the lives of everyone else on the road.
It'll never be perfect, but we should be doing a lot better than we are doing currently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</id>
	<title>Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1264768320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't surprise me too much.  One interesting fact it does indicate is that the people who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who are in accidents.</p><p>Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars.  Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't surprise me too much .
One interesting fact it does indicate is that the people who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who are in accidents.Personally , I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars .
Our communications technology is at a point where it 's a serious waste of a human being 's time to be driving , and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't surprise me too much.
One interesting fact it does indicate is that the people who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who are in accidents.Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars.
Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30965862</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>sincewhen</author>
	<datestamp>1264849260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe that the biggest problem is that you can't get there from here. What are you going to do with the millions of vehicles on the road today?  <br>
If you could make robocars intelligent enough to drive on current roads, mixed with "manual" cars, they would still be involved in accidents, negating one of their primary advantages.<br>
I just can't see it happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that the biggest problem is that you ca n't get there from here .
What are you going to do with the millions of vehicles on the road today ?
If you could make robocars intelligent enough to drive on current roads , mixed with " manual " cars , they would still be involved in accidents , negating one of their primary advantages .
I just ca n't see it happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that the biggest problem is that you can't get there from here.
What are you going to do with the millions of vehicles on the road today?
If you could make robocars intelligent enough to drive on current roads, mixed with "manual" cars, they would still be involved in accidents, negating one of their primary advantages.
I just can't see it happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959152</id>
	<title>I guess Saskatchewan, Canada didn't see this study</title>
	<author>xQuarkDS9x</author>
	<datestamp>1264783560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviousely Saskatchewan, Canada didnt see this study, because as of January 1st 2010 SGI (the provincial insurance company) put into effect a law against texting or talking on a cell phone with fines as high as $300 CDN and points taken off your license. And yet, I still see plenty of people texting or talking on the cell when driving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviousely Saskatchewan , Canada didnt see this study , because as of January 1st 2010 SGI ( the provincial insurance company ) put into effect a law against texting or talking on a cell phone with fines as high as $ 300 CDN and points taken off your license .
And yet , I still see plenty of people texting or talking on the cell when driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviousely Saskatchewan, Canada didnt see this study, because as of January 1st 2010 SGI (the provincial insurance company) put into effect a law against texting or talking on a cell phone with fines as high as $300 CDN and points taken off your license.
And yet, I still see plenty of people texting or talking on the cell when driving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959030</id>
	<title>Re:Woman can't stop texting, wrecks 3 cars in 3 ye</title>
	<author>imess</author>
	<datestamp>1264782540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like saying capital punishment will eliminate those crimes. No, it won't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like saying capital punishment will eliminate those crimes .
No , it wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like saying capital punishment will eliminate those crimes.
No, it won't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958120</id>
	<title>I see no mention of how strict enforcement is...</title>
	<author>ElboRuum</author>
	<datestamp>1264774920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that's because you don't get pulled over for it.</p><p>In my state it is supposedly a ticketable offense to drive in the left lane on multilane highways without intent to pass.  So far, I know of only one person who ever got pulled over for it.  Same with not using turn signals.  Police on traffic patrol always go for the big fish revenue-wise when it comes to ticketing, and that has always been speeding.  Pulling people over for presumably lesser revenue offenses means time wasted pursuing the bigger fish.</p><p>So pardon me if I treat the results with a little skepticism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that 's because you do n't get pulled over for it.In my state it is supposedly a ticketable offense to drive in the left lane on multilane highways without intent to pass .
So far , I know of only one person who ever got pulled over for it .
Same with not using turn signals .
Police on traffic patrol always go for the big fish revenue-wise when it comes to ticketing , and that has always been speeding .
Pulling people over for presumably lesser revenue offenses means time wasted pursuing the bigger fish.So pardon me if I treat the results with a little skepticism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that's because you don't get pulled over for it.In my state it is supposedly a ticketable offense to drive in the left lane on multilane highways without intent to pass.
So far, I know of only one person who ever got pulled over for it.
Same with not using turn signals.
Police on traffic patrol always go for the big fish revenue-wise when it comes to ticketing, and that has always been speeding.
Pulling people over for presumably lesser revenue offenses means time wasted pursuing the bigger fish.So pardon me if I treat the results with a little skepticism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959120</id>
	<title>Correlation != Causation</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1264783260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that when it all comes down to it, it will be found that for the most part, it is people who are irresponsible drivers to start with are the ones who are irresponsibly calling and texting on their cell phones.
<br> <br>
Somewhat ironically (but I don't want to get into that), I think they will eventually find that although cell phone use and texting are related to accident rates, they are <b>not</b> a proximate cause.
<br> <br>
And that also means that insurance companies will have to change the way the do some things. No longer will they be able to charge more just because one thing is correlated with another. They should have to show actual cause.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that when it all comes down to it , it will be found that for the most part , it is people who are irresponsible drivers to start with are the ones who are irresponsibly calling and texting on their cell phones .
Somewhat ironically ( but I do n't want to get into that ) , I think they will eventually find that although cell phone use and texting are related to accident rates , they are not a proximate cause .
And that also means that insurance companies will have to change the way the do some things .
No longer will they be able to charge more just because one thing is correlated with another .
They should have to show actual cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that when it all comes down to it, it will be found that for the most part, it is people who are irresponsible drivers to start with are the ones who are irresponsibly calling and texting on their cell phones.
Somewhat ironically (but I don't want to get into that), I think they will eventually find that although cell phone use and texting are related to accident rates, they are not a proximate cause.
And that also means that insurance companies will have to change the way the do some things.
No longer will they be able to charge more just because one thing is correlated with another.
They should have to show actual cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958302</id>
	<title>Re:Use Telco data for better estimation</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1264776240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I support cellphone bans, but I see no reason to ban using them on remote portions of the road except that it might just complicate the law a bit too much. I would not use a cellphone while driving in the city, but I wouldn't think twice if I am driving through cornfields. I doubt I am the only one who thinks that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I support cellphone bans , but I see no reason to ban using them on remote portions of the road except that it might just complicate the law a bit too much .
I would not use a cellphone while driving in the city , but I would n't think twice if I am driving through cornfields .
I doubt I am the only one who thinks that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I support cellphone bans, but I see no reason to ban using them on remote portions of the road except that it might just complicate the law a bit too much.
I would not use a cellphone while driving in the city, but I wouldn't think twice if I am driving through cornfields.
I doubt I am the only one who thinks that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957762</id>
	<title>Or time to enforce them...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1264772400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the laws aren't being enforced, then you can't tell if they're unnecessary or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the laws are n't being enforced , then you ca n't tell if they 're unnecessary or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the laws aren't being enforced, then you can't tell if they're unnecessary or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957170</id>
	<title>I'd expect more from an official study</title>
	<author>Faaln</author>
	<datestamp>1264769160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the most basic aspects of a study involving observation is to always remember:

Correlation does not equal Causation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the most basic aspects of a study involving observation is to always remember : Correlation does not equal Causation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the most basic aspects of a study involving observation is to always remember:

Correlation does not equal Causation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30960016</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264794660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars. Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.</i></p><p>I wholeheartedly agree. The law is behind you 120\%.</p><p>-The Trial Lawyers Association</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars .
Our communications technology is at a point where it 's a serious waste of a human being 's time to be driving , and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.I wholeheartedly agree .
The law is behind you 120 \ % .-The Trial Lawyers Association</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars.
Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.I wholeheartedly agree.
The law is behind you 120\%.-The Trial Lawyers Association</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957120</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>b0s0z0ku</author>
	<datestamp>1264768980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck mandating self-driving cars - I like driving and riding motos.  Fortunately, I live in NYC, so I don't have to commute by car so driving hasn't become a chore.

As far as bans having no effect, we've banned many things and people still do them.  Perhaps the kind of people who NEED to use their cell phones right now as opposed to glancing at a text or picking up an occasional call will ignore the ban.  The casual users who'll follow the ban paid less attention to the phone and more to driving before the ban.

-b.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck mandating self-driving cars - I like driving and riding motos .
Fortunately , I live in NYC , so I do n't have to commute by car so driving has n't become a chore .
As far as bans having no effect , we 've banned many things and people still do them .
Perhaps the kind of people who NEED to use their cell phones right now as opposed to glancing at a text or picking up an occasional call will ignore the ban .
The casual users who 'll follow the ban paid less attention to the phone and more to driving before the ban .
-b .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck mandating self-driving cars - I like driving and riding motos.
Fortunately, I live in NYC, so I don't have to commute by car so driving hasn't become a chore.
As far as bans having no effect, we've banned many things and people still do them.
Perhaps the kind of people who NEED to use their cell phones right now as opposed to glancing at a text or picking up an occasional call will ignore the ban.
The casual users who'll follow the ban paid less attention to the phone and more to driving before the ban.
-b.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959758</id>
	<title>Flawed study</title>
	<author>drkim</author>
	<datestamp>1264791060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK,
<br>
I get the impression this study is flawed. Here's how:
<br>
It's data set is based on "Comparing insurance claims for crash damage..."
<br>
So the crash data would be mostly self reported. Now - before the ban - someone might report, "I was talking on my phone, and I hit the tree."
<br>
However, after the ban, they wouldn't admit doing anything illegal during the crash (since this could be a cause for non-payment) like talking on the phone, so they would be motivated <b>not to report</b> the phone call.
<br> <br>
Some of you thought that there is a 'right' to drive. That is not a right found in the constitution. However, the federal &amp; state governments <b>do</b> have the ability to: protect us from others, and protect us from ourselves. Just like they can require seat belt wearing in cars, and helmets for motorcyclists, they can proscribe what they deem to be safe practices while driving like: having a license, not being drunk, and not driving while distracted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I get the impression this study is flawed .
Here 's how : It 's data set is based on " Comparing insurance claims for crash damage... " So the crash data would be mostly self reported .
Now - before the ban - someone might report , " I was talking on my phone , and I hit the tree .
" However , after the ban , they would n't admit doing anything illegal during the crash ( since this could be a cause for non-payment ) like talking on the phone , so they would be motivated not to report the phone call .
Some of you thought that there is a 'right ' to drive .
That is not a right found in the constitution .
However , the federal &amp; state governments do have the ability to : protect us from others , and protect us from ourselves .
Just like they can require seat belt wearing in cars , and helmets for motorcyclists , they can proscribe what they deem to be safe practices while driving like : having a license , not being drunk , and not driving while distracted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK,

I get the impression this study is flawed.
Here's how:

It's data set is based on "Comparing insurance claims for crash damage..."

So the crash data would be mostly self reported.
Now - before the ban - someone might report, "I was talking on my phone, and I hit the tree.
"

However, after the ban, they wouldn't admit doing anything illegal during the crash (since this could be a cause for non-payment) like talking on the phone, so they would be motivated not to report the phone call.
Some of you thought that there is a 'right' to drive.
That is not a right found in the constitution.
However, the federal &amp; state governments do have the ability to: protect us from others, and protect us from ourselves.
Just like they can require seat belt wearing in cars, and helmets for motorcyclists, they can proscribe what they deem to be safe practices while driving like: having a license, not being drunk, and not driving while distracted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957706</id>
	<title>Re:Woman can't stop texting, wrecks 3 cars in 3 ye</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1264772040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would agree with you if we started treating stereo use while driving or having arguing kids in the back while driving the same as driving while intoxicated.  To do one and not the other would just be a case of outlawing a technology because of it's year of popularization.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would agree with you if we started treating stereo use while driving or having arguing kids in the back while driving the same as driving while intoxicated .
To do one and not the other would just be a case of outlawing a technology because of it 's year of popularization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would agree with you if we started treating stereo use while driving or having arguing kids in the back while driving the same as driving while intoxicated.
To do one and not the other would just be a case of outlawing a technology because of it's year of popularization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957178</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1264769220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm very much looking forward to riding in cars that are better drivers than I am.</p><p>Hopefully it makes sense to have them operate as taxis, but with reduced costs, because of the lack of a meat-bag to operate the thing. If the per mile cost is low enough, no need to own!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm very much looking forward to riding in cars that are better drivers than I am.Hopefully it makes sense to have them operate as taxis , but with reduced costs , because of the lack of a meat-bag to operate the thing .
If the per mile cost is low enough , no need to own !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm very much looking forward to riding in cars that are better drivers than I am.Hopefully it makes sense to have them operate as taxis, but with reduced costs, because of the lack of a meat-bag to operate the thing.
If the per mile cost is low enough, no need to own!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30983828</id>
	<title>Re:Woman can't stop texting, wrecks 3 cars in 3 ye</title>
	<author>spmkk</author>
	<datestamp>1265050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correlation != Causation.<br>
<br>
This woman totaled 3 cars in 3 years because she's a bad driver and unaware of her limitations, not because there was a phone involved. Her dad uses his phone while driving as well, but near as I can determine, in the same 3 years has totaled zero cars.<br>
<br>
Problem: You can't legislate good judgment.<br>
Solution: Prohibit anything that could possibly be misused by someone with bad judgment?<br>
<br>
/ There has to be a better way...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correlation ! = Causation .
This woman totaled 3 cars in 3 years because she 's a bad driver and unaware of her limitations , not because there was a phone involved .
Her dad uses his phone while driving as well , but near as I can determine , in the same 3 years has totaled zero cars .
Problem : You ca n't legislate good judgment .
Solution : Prohibit anything that could possibly be misused by someone with bad judgment ?
/ There has to be a better way.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correlation != Causation.
This woman totaled 3 cars in 3 years because she's a bad driver and unaware of her limitations, not because there was a phone involved.
Her dad uses his phone while driving as well, but near as I can determine, in the same 3 years has totaled zero cars.
Problem: You can't legislate good judgment.
Solution: Prohibit anything that could possibly be misused by someone with bad judgment?
/ There has to be a better way...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957022</id>
	<title>Use Telco data for better estimation</title>
	<author>jimasksme</author>
	<datestamp>1264768500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there any chance that anonymous cellphone usage from telco companies could be queried to better estimate the usage of cell phones on say remote Interstate portions (where it's far less likely that people are using their cell phones in their homes) ?  <br> <br>

<a href="http://jimasks.me/would-you-ever-consider-bribing-someone-to-get-a-job-promotion" title="jimasks.me" rel="nofollow">http://jimasks.me/would-you-ever-consider-bribing-someone-to-get-a-job-promotion</a> [jimasks.me]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any chance that anonymous cellphone usage from telco companies could be queried to better estimate the usage of cell phones on say remote Interstate portions ( where it 's far less likely that people are using their cell phones in their homes ) ?
http : //jimasks.me/would-you-ever-consider-bribing-someone-to-get-a-job-promotion [ jimasks.me ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any chance that anonymous cellphone usage from telco companies could be queried to better estimate the usage of cell phones on say remote Interstate portions (where it's far less likely that people are using their cell phones in their homes) ?
http://jimasks.me/would-you-ever-consider-bribing-someone-to-get-a-job-promotion [jimasks.me]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959410</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1264786560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many subway and suburban rail systems utilize Automatic Train Control, which is basically the equivalent of robocars (except that it's <i>much</i> simpler from a computational and logistical perspective).</p><p>There have been a few ATC-related accidents (particularly on the DC metro), and as far as I'm aware, the manufacturer of the subway cars have never been found liable.  In all instances, poor maintenance, faulty signaling equipment, and/or blindingly stupid actions on the part of the operator have been found to cause the failures, with accountability/liability distributed accordingly.</p><p>Of course, if a robocar does cause an accident due to a legitimate manufacturing/software defect, the company should be 100\% liable, just like Ford had to own up to the Pinto's design shortcomings.  Unless the system was <i>really</i> poorly designed, I imagine that Robocars would be much safer than human drivers, and any accidents that do occur would be due to random mechanical failures -- not the design of the car itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many subway and suburban rail systems utilize Automatic Train Control , which is basically the equivalent of robocars ( except that it 's much simpler from a computational and logistical perspective ) .There have been a few ATC-related accidents ( particularly on the DC metro ) , and as far as I 'm aware , the manufacturer of the subway cars have never been found liable .
In all instances , poor maintenance , faulty signaling equipment , and/or blindingly stupid actions on the part of the operator have been found to cause the failures , with accountability/liability distributed accordingly.Of course , if a robocar does cause an accident due to a legitimate manufacturing/software defect , the company should be 100 \ % liable , just like Ford had to own up to the Pinto 's design shortcomings .
Unless the system was really poorly designed , I imagine that Robocars would be much safer than human drivers , and any accidents that do occur would be due to random mechanical failures -- not the design of the car itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many subway and suburban rail systems utilize Automatic Train Control, which is basically the equivalent of robocars (except that it's much simpler from a computational and logistical perspective).There have been a few ATC-related accidents (particularly on the DC metro), and as far as I'm aware, the manufacturer of the subway cars have never been found liable.
In all instances, poor maintenance, faulty signaling equipment, and/or blindingly stupid actions on the part of the operator have been found to cause the failures, with accountability/liability distributed accordingly.Of course, if a robocar does cause an accident due to a legitimate manufacturing/software defect, the company should be 100\% liable, just like Ford had to own up to the Pinto's design shortcomings.
Unless the system was really poorly designed, I imagine that Robocars would be much safer than human drivers, and any accidents that do occur would be due to random mechanical failures -- not the design of the car itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958616</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1264779180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a somewhat relevant example, look into why Cessna stopped producing general aviation aircraft. (Hint: getting sued after crashes of poorly-maintained, 50-year-old planes was a factor.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a somewhat relevant example , look into why Cessna stopped producing general aviation aircraft .
( Hint : getting sued after crashes of poorly-maintained , 50-year-old planes was a factor .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a somewhat relevant example, look into why Cessna stopped producing general aviation aircraft.
(Hint: getting sued after crashes of poorly-maintained, 50-year-old planes was a factor.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30961416</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1264858920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe someday there will be some sort of widely deployed fully automated transportation.  It won't look much like cars on roads though.</p></div><p>that's too easy. public transportation !<br>sucking more or less in various places across europe, nearly non-existent in usa. while many forms still require a driver, those drivers usually are way more skilled, and are more easily converted in automatic lines (some undergrounds and trams operate like that already).</p><p>usa-ians usually invoke distances as an argument against public transportation, but that's not working in big cities - if small towns in europe can have some sort of public transportation, surely it would work excellent in new york. no, taxis don't count as public transportation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>what i'd like to see, some calculations for an average sized city of today, how much money would be required to make public transportation fully subsidised. americans would probably jump up and start screaming at this point, but it would be interesting to compare costs of implementing and maintaining fare gathering system, time spent by residents to use it, time spent by tourists...<br>i'd certainly move a location up in my "want to visit" list if it had such a thing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe someday there will be some sort of widely deployed fully automated transportation .
It wo n't look much like cars on roads though.that 's too easy .
public transportation ! sucking more or less in various places across europe , nearly non-existent in usa .
while many forms still require a driver , those drivers usually are way more skilled , and are more easily converted in automatic lines ( some undergrounds and trams operate like that already ) .usa-ians usually invoke distances as an argument against public transportation , but that 's not working in big cities - if small towns in europe can have some sort of public transportation , surely it would work excellent in new york .
no , taxis do n't count as public transportation : ) what i 'd like to see , some calculations for an average sized city of today , how much money would be required to make public transportation fully subsidised .
americans would probably jump up and start screaming at this point , but it would be interesting to compare costs of implementing and maintaining fare gathering system , time spent by residents to use it , time spent by tourists...i 'd certainly move a location up in my " want to visit " list if it had such a thing : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe someday there will be some sort of widely deployed fully automated transportation.
It won't look much like cars on roads though.that's too easy.
public transportation !sucking more or less in various places across europe, nearly non-existent in usa.
while many forms still require a driver, those drivers usually are way more skilled, and are more easily converted in automatic lines (some undergrounds and trams operate like that already).usa-ians usually invoke distances as an argument against public transportation, but that's not working in big cities - if small towns in europe can have some sort of public transportation, surely it would work excellent in new york.
no, taxis don't count as public transportation :)what i'd like to see, some calculations for an average sized city of today, how much money would be required to make public transportation fully subsidised.
americans would probably jump up and start screaming at this point, but it would be interesting to compare costs of implementing and maintaining fare gathering system, time spent by residents to use it, time spent by tourists...i'd certainly move a location up in my "want to visit" list if it had such a thing :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957570</id>
	<title>Libertarian thinking.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264771320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Extra regulations are an example of libertarian thinking.  Libertarians are known as the "left" in America, while liberals are the "right".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Extra regulations are an example of libertarian thinking .
Libertarians are known as the " left " in America , while liberals are the " right " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Extra regulations are an example of libertarian thinking.
Libertarians are known as the "left" in America, while liberals are the "right".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958142</id>
	<title>reduce from what?</title>
	<author>vanyel</author>
	<datestamp>1264775100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There would have had to have been an increase in accidents from such activities for banning them to have caused a reduction.  If they were as dangerous as people make them out to be, accident rates would have skyrocketed over the last couple of decades, and I've seen no indication whatsoever that that is the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There would have had to have been an increase in accidents from such activities for banning them to have caused a reduction .
If they were as dangerous as people make them out to be , accident rates would have skyrocketed over the last couple of decades , and I 've seen no indication whatsoever that that is the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There would have had to have been an increase in accidents from such activities for banning them to have caused a reduction.
If they were as dangerous as people make them out to be, accident rates would have skyrocketed over the last couple of decades, and I've seen no indication whatsoever that that is the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957338</id>
	<title>Re:Not much change here</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1264770000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many people have actually been fined?<br>If the danger of being fined is high enough, people will change their behaviour. Otherwise, they won't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people have actually been fined ? If the danger of being fined is high enough , people will change their behaviour .
Otherwise , they wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people have actually been fined?If the danger of being fined is high enough, people will change their behaviour.
Otherwise, they won't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957116</id>
	<title>Accident prone drivers are still using their cells</title>
	<author>serialband</author>
	<datestamp>1264768980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The oblivious, accident prone drivers that use cell phones are likely to still using cell phones.  The ones who generally pay more attention to the roads tend to try to obey the rules and not cause accidents aren't.  I still see many drivers obliviously using their cell phones while driving even after laws are passed.</p><p>I have on occasion used a cell phone before the law was passed, but I was always careful about it.  I'd move over to a slower lane and slow down.  I avoided using it during rush hour.  If I had to use it during rush hour I pulled off at an off-ramp and used it there, not while driving.  With the law, I have an excuse not to answer the phone in the car and I'll tell people I was driving when I called them back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The oblivious , accident prone drivers that use cell phones are likely to still using cell phones .
The ones who generally pay more attention to the roads tend to try to obey the rules and not cause accidents are n't .
I still see many drivers obliviously using their cell phones while driving even after laws are passed.I have on occasion used a cell phone before the law was passed , but I was always careful about it .
I 'd move over to a slower lane and slow down .
I avoided using it during rush hour .
If I had to use it during rush hour I pulled off at an off-ramp and used it there , not while driving .
With the law , I have an excuse not to answer the phone in the car and I 'll tell people I was driving when I called them back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The oblivious, accident prone drivers that use cell phones are likely to still using cell phones.
The ones who generally pay more attention to the roads tend to try to obey the rules and not cause accidents aren't.
I still see many drivers obliviously using their cell phones while driving even after laws are passed.I have on occasion used a cell phone before the law was passed, but I was always careful about it.
I'd move over to a slower lane and slow down.
I avoided using it during rush hour.
If I had to use it during rush hour I pulled off at an off-ramp and used it there, not while driving.
With the law, I have an excuse not to answer the phone in the car and I'll tell people I was driving when I called them back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957902</id>
	<title>Re:Woman can't stop texting, wrecks 3 cars in 3 ye</title>
	<author>Coren22</author>
	<datestamp>1264773240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally feel I should ask, how is that any different from any other distracted driving, if she was looking at the radio to change the station the accident would have happened as well, why is it somehow special that it is a cell phone, not the brats in the back seat, or the person next to you.  I have seen people kissing while driving...that is even worse in my mind.  But this girl definitely needs to lose the phone...as she puts it, she looks at the screen and often forgets she's even driving, maybe she needs something that blocks the cell phone from working in the car...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally feel I should ask , how is that any different from any other distracted driving , if she was looking at the radio to change the station the accident would have happened as well , why is it somehow special that it is a cell phone , not the brats in the back seat , or the person next to you .
I have seen people kissing while driving...that is even worse in my mind .
But this girl definitely needs to lose the phone...as she puts it , she looks at the screen and often forgets she 's even driving , maybe she needs something that blocks the cell phone from working in the car.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally feel I should ask, how is that any different from any other distracted driving, if she was looking at the radio to change the station the accident would have happened as well, why is it somehow special that it is a cell phone, not the brats in the back seat, or the person next to you.
I have seen people kissing while driving...that is even worse in my mind.
But this girl definitely needs to lose the phone...as she puts it, she looks at the screen and often forgets she's even driving, maybe she needs something that blocks the cell phone from working in the car...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957232</id>
	<title>Different Studies had different results?</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1264769580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted, all though there were less people using devices while driving. An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries. Also independent studies done by universities have shown correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.</i></p><p>Study 1: Cellphone use is "linked" to a four-fold increase in crash <i>injuries</i>.<br>Study 2: There is a correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.<br>Study 3: After laws banning cell-phone use were enacted, <i>monthly fluctuations in crash rates</i> didn't change.</p><p>These studies, as summarized in the summary, are not inconsistent.  Fluctuations in crash rates need not change in order for the overall number of crashes to change.  Injuries are not the same as conversation or even accidents, and a difference in the quantity of injuries may reflect something as simple as not holding the wheel with both hands.  And you don't say the correlation is positive.</p><p>Okay, maybe the last is implied--but still, could we try to be a bit more specific before implying conclusions that would, if true, justify major policy changes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite those laws , monthly fluctuations in crash rates did n't change after bans were enacted , all though there were less people using devices while driving .
An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries .
Also independent studies done by universities have shown correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.Study 1 : Cellphone use is " linked " to a four-fold increase in crash injuries.Study 2 : There is a correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.Study 3 : After laws banning cell-phone use were enacted , monthly fluctuations in crash rates did n't change.These studies , as summarized in the summary , are not inconsistent .
Fluctuations in crash rates need not change in order for the overall number of crashes to change .
Injuries are not the same as conversation or even accidents , and a difference in the quantity of injuries may reflect something as simple as not holding the wheel with both hands .
And you do n't say the correlation is positive.Okay , maybe the last is implied--but still , could we try to be a bit more specific before implying conclusions that would , if true , justify major policy changes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted, all though there were less people using devices while driving.
An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries.
Also independent studies done by universities have shown correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.Study 1: Cellphone use is "linked" to a four-fold increase in crash injuries.Study 2: There is a correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.Study 3: After laws banning cell-phone use were enacted, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change.These studies, as summarized in the summary, are not inconsistent.
Fluctuations in crash rates need not change in order for the overall number of crashes to change.
Injuries are not the same as conversation or even accidents, and a difference in the quantity of injuries may reflect something as simple as not holding the wheel with both hands.
And you don't say the correlation is positive.Okay, maybe the last is implied--but still, could we try to be a bit more specific before implying conclusions that would, if true, justify major policy changes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957142</id>
	<title>Backwards</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1264769040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My opinion is: the governments should not ban the practice and levy punitive fees to the non-compliant. They should offer license endorsements or permits (for a fee of course) for those that can soundly pass some kind of 'mobile phone usage' test. This would generate revenue, create jobs, and give those of us with teenage daughters yet one more thing to refuse to pay for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My opinion is : the governments should not ban the practice and levy punitive fees to the non-compliant .
They should offer license endorsements or permits ( for a fee of course ) for those that can soundly pass some kind of 'mobile phone usage ' test .
This would generate revenue , create jobs , and give those of us with teenage daughters yet one more thing to refuse to pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My opinion is: the governments should not ban the practice and levy punitive fees to the non-compliant.
They should offer license endorsements or permits (for a fee of course) for those that can soundly pass some kind of 'mobile phone usage' test.
This would generate revenue, create jobs, and give those of us with teenage daughters yet one more thing to refuse to pay for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957318</id>
	<title>bad drivers to begin with</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1264769880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could it be that people who want to text while driving are just bad drivers, or don't understand the risks properly, to begin with and all banning phone use just removes their excuse?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be that people who want to text while driving are just bad drivers , or do n't understand the risks properly , to begin with and all banning phone use just removes their excuse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be that people who want to text while driving are just bad drivers, or don't understand the risks properly, to begin with and all banning phone use just removes their excuse?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30965798</id>
	<title>Flawed study</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1264848780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; This just proves that the study is inherently flawed, and therefore had a flawed conclusion.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; More people have and are using cell phones and texting than 30 years ago.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; More accidents have happened while people were texting or holding a cell phone.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Therefore, more accidents have happened because of the cell phone.  Wrong.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; How about this...</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; More cars come with leather seats now, where they may have had vinyl seats 30 years ago.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; More accidents have happened while the driver was sitting in a leather seat.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Therefore, more accidents have happened because of leather seat.  Wrong again.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; This same argument could be applied to a whole bunch of unrelated facts.  Maybe the reduction of cars being sold in "burnt orange" color has increased the number of accidents.  Just like the presumption that red cars get more tickets, or owners of red cars drive faster, or.. or.. or.. or..</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; There was absolutely no reason to outlaw driving while holding a cell phone, or texting, or girls doing their makeup.  These are already covered under "driving while distracted", or whatever it may be called in your jurisdiction.  A cell phone conversation can be as heated as an in-person conversation in the car.  It's all covered already.  Lawmakers just like making new laws to cover previously covered ground.  Everyone else loves jumping on it like it's something new and amazing.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    This just proves that the study is inherently flawed , and therefore had a flawed conclusion .
    More people have and are using cell phones and texting than 30 years ago .
    More accidents have happened while people were texting or holding a cell phone .
    Therefore , more accidents have happened because of the cell phone .
Wrong .     How about this.. .     More cars come with leather seats now , where they may have had vinyl seats 30 years ago .
    More accidents have happened while the driver was sitting in a leather seat .
    Therefore , more accidents have happened because of leather seat .
Wrong again .
    This same argument could be applied to a whole bunch of unrelated facts .
Maybe the reduction of cars being sold in " burnt orange " color has increased the number of accidents .
Just like the presumption that red cars get more tickets , or owners of red cars drive faster , or.. or.. or.. or. .     There was absolutely no reason to outlaw driving while holding a cell phone , or texting , or girls doing their makeup .
These are already covered under " driving while distracted " , or whatever it may be called in your jurisdiction .
A cell phone conversation can be as heated as an in-person conversation in the car .
It 's all covered already .
Lawmakers just like making new laws to cover previously covered ground .
Everyone else loves jumping on it like it 's something new and amazing .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    This just proves that the study is inherently flawed, and therefore had a flawed conclusion.
    More people have and are using cell phones and texting than 30 years ago.
    More accidents have happened while people were texting or holding a cell phone.
    Therefore, more accidents have happened because of the cell phone.
Wrong.
    How about this...
    More cars come with leather seats now, where they may have had vinyl seats 30 years ago.
    More accidents have happened while the driver was sitting in a leather seat.
    Therefore, more accidents have happened because of leather seat.
Wrong again.
    This same argument could be applied to a whole bunch of unrelated facts.
Maybe the reduction of cars being sold in "burnt orange" color has increased the number of accidents.
Just like the presumption that red cars get more tickets, or owners of red cars drive faster, or.. or.. or.. or..
    There was absolutely no reason to outlaw driving while holding a cell phone, or texting, or girls doing their makeup.
These are already covered under "driving while distracted", or whatever it may be called in your jurisdiction.
A cell phone conversation can be as heated as an in-person conversation in the car.
It's all covered already.
Lawmakers just like making new laws to cover previously covered ground.
Everyone else loves jumping on it like it's something new and amazing.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959980</id>
	<title>This is the wrong way</title>
	<author>Psicopatico</author>
	<datestamp>1264794360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just mandate a jammer in every brand new car and you're done.</p><p>Won't solve the bad drivers issue though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just mandate a jammer in every brand new car and you 're done.Wo n't solve the bad drivers issue though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just mandate a jammer in every brand new car and you're done.Won't solve the bad drivers issue though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30960050</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264795080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.</i></p><p>So why try ? Why not require the use existing technology to block calls where the user is moving to fast to be on foot ? I realize this would more than just drivers, but if commuter trains and buses were cell phone free too, wouldn't that be a bonus ? If you were in a car you could always pull over and stop like you were supposed too, or get off the train.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.So why try ?
Why not require the use existing technology to block calls where the user is moving to fast to be on foot ?
I realize this would more than just drivers , but if commuter trains and buses were cell phone free too , would n't that be a bonus ?
If you were in a car you could always pull over and stop like you were supposed too , or get off the train .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.So why try ?
Why not require the use existing technology to block calls where the user is moving to fast to be on foot ?
I realize this would more than just drivers, but if commuter trains and buses were cell phone free too, wouldn't that be a bonus ?
If you were in a car you could always pull over and stop like you were supposed too, or get off the train.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957728</id>
	<title>Re:Woman can't stop texting, wrecks 3 cars in 3 ye</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264772220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Treat her like they treat drunk driving in one of the south american countries, the cop shoots you on the spot!  Okay, they probably don't really do that, but its a great way to solve the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Treat her like they treat drunk driving in one of the south american countries , the cop shoots you on the spot !
Okay , they probably do n't really do that , but its a great way to solve the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Treat her like they treat drunk driving in one of the south american countries, the cop shoots you on the spot!
Okay, they probably don't really do that, but its a great way to solve the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957886</id>
	<title>TFA is a thinking fail.</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1264773180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah right, because as soon as the law was passed people all stopped using phones in the car and they are crashing because of something else (preferably something they can't be blamed for).<p>
what a fucking crock of shit, i see people taking their eyes off the road to send txt messages all the time. without a hands free kit you've only got one hand on the wheel and 1/2 your focus on the road. any god damn fool can see how that will end in disaster.</p><p>
you know what would actually see a reduction in crashes? more cops on the road since that visible presence is the biggest deterent there is. if you think there's a cop around every corner that will book you for speeding/DYI/txting a lot less people will risk it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah right , because as soon as the law was passed people all stopped using phones in the car and they are crashing because of something else ( preferably something they ca n't be blamed for ) .
what a fucking crock of shit , i see people taking their eyes off the road to send txt messages all the time .
without a hands free kit you 've only got one hand on the wheel and 1/2 your focus on the road .
any god damn fool can see how that will end in disaster .
you know what would actually see a reduction in crashes ?
more cops on the road since that visible presence is the biggest deterent there is .
if you think there 's a cop around every corner that will book you for speeding/DYI/txting a lot less people will risk it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah right, because as soon as the law was passed people all stopped using phones in the car and they are crashing because of something else (preferably something they can't be blamed for).
what a fucking crock of shit, i see people taking their eyes off the road to send txt messages all the time.
without a hands free kit you've only got one hand on the wheel and 1/2 your focus on the road.
any god damn fool can see how that will end in disaster.
you know what would actually see a reduction in crashes?
more cops on the road since that visible presence is the biggest deterent there is.
if you think there's a cop around every corner that will book you for speeding/DYI/txting a lot less people will risk it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958048</id>
	<title>Probably because cell phone use isn't a factor</title>
	<author>Guido del Confuso</author>
	<datestamp>1264774260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget the "studies" that result in cute sound bites like "talking on a cell phone is like driving drunk".  Let's look at some good, hard numbers: <a href="http://www.aitelephone.com/cellphonelegrpt.pdf" title="aitelephone.com">DRIVER DISTRACTIONS AND INATTENTION DATA SUMMARY</a> [aitelephone.com]</p><p>The key info is on page 5.  From January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2002 in California, there were 491,083 accidents.  Of those, cell phones were only considered a factor in 611 of them.  That works out to about 0.1\% of all accidents.  Even if we (generously) assume such accidents are somehow under-reported by a factor of ten (which is extremely unlikely, since driver inattention was only considered a factor in 1\% of all accidents in that time period), that's no more than 1\% of all accidents.  That's well within the margin of error for year to year fluctuations.  There's no way a ban on cell phone use in cars could have any statistically significant effect on accident numbers.</p><p>"But, but, I've see people on cell phones who were bad drivers!"  Yeah, and I've seen plenty of bad drivers who weren't on cell phones.  Does cell phone usage cause bad driving?  I don't know.  Maybe bad drivers are more likely to use cell phones.  But do cell phones cause accidents?  The numbers just don't support that conclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget the " studies " that result in cute sound bites like " talking on a cell phone is like driving drunk " .
Let 's look at some good , hard numbers : DRIVER DISTRACTIONS AND INATTENTION DATA SUMMARY [ aitelephone.com ] The key info is on page 5 .
From January 1 , 2002 to June 30 , 2002 in California , there were 491,083 accidents .
Of those , cell phones were only considered a factor in 611 of them .
That works out to about 0.1 \ % of all accidents .
Even if we ( generously ) assume such accidents are somehow under-reported by a factor of ten ( which is extremely unlikely , since driver inattention was only considered a factor in 1 \ % of all accidents in that time period ) , that 's no more than 1 \ % of all accidents .
That 's well within the margin of error for year to year fluctuations .
There 's no way a ban on cell phone use in cars could have any statistically significant effect on accident numbers .
" But , but , I 've see people on cell phones who were bad drivers !
" Yeah , and I 've seen plenty of bad drivers who were n't on cell phones .
Does cell phone usage cause bad driving ?
I do n't know .
Maybe bad drivers are more likely to use cell phones .
But do cell phones cause accidents ?
The numbers just do n't support that conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget the "studies" that result in cute sound bites like "talking on a cell phone is like driving drunk".
Let's look at some good, hard numbers: DRIVER DISTRACTIONS AND INATTENTION DATA SUMMARY [aitelephone.com]The key info is on page 5.
From January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2002 in California, there were 491,083 accidents.
Of those, cell phones were only considered a factor in 611 of them.
That works out to about 0.1\% of all accidents.
Even if we (generously) assume such accidents are somehow under-reported by a factor of ten (which is extremely unlikely, since driver inattention was only considered a factor in 1\% of all accidents in that time period), that's no more than 1\% of all accidents.
That's well within the margin of error for year to year fluctuations.
There's no way a ban on cell phone use in cars could have any statistically significant effect on accident numbers.
"But, but, I've see people on cell phones who were bad drivers!
"  Yeah, and I've seen plenty of bad drivers who weren't on cell phones.
Does cell phone usage cause bad driving?
I don't know.
Maybe bad drivers are more likely to use cell phones.
But do cell phones cause accidents?
The numbers just don't support that conclusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957308</id>
	<title>This Just In...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264769880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This Just In: Unenforceable Law Proves Ineffective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This Just In : Unenforceable Law Proves Ineffective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Just In: Unenforceable Law Proves Ineffective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957498</id>
	<title>Time to repeal the laws then?</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1264770960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, now that the bans have been proven ineffective our reasoning lawmakers will surely repeal the unnecessary bans on cell-phone use while driving, right?  What? They won't?!</p><p>Let this be a lesson to everyone who has grand new ideas for how the government can interfere with our lives: Once something has been done, it is almost impossible to undo it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , now that the bans have been proven ineffective our reasoning lawmakers will surely repeal the unnecessary bans on cell-phone use while driving , right ?
What ? They wo n't ?
! Let this be a lesson to everyone who has grand new ideas for how the government can interfere with our lives : Once something has been done , it is almost impossible to undo it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, now that the bans have been proven ineffective our reasoning lawmakers will surely repeal the unnecessary bans on cell-phone use while driving, right?
What? They won't?
!Let this be a lesson to everyone who has grand new ideas for how the government can interfere with our lives: Once something has been done, it is almost impossible to undo it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30965518</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264846260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no "right" to drive.  It is a privilege.  States have a "right" to enact laws for the common good.  No one has to follow them.  But, there are penalties for not doing so.  Everyone is "free" to be a mindless idiot, but if caught they will be ticketed.  The purpose is to make driving safe for everyone.   Not every thing that makes driving unsafe is against the law, but IMHO, texting or cell phoning have become a problem that can not be ignored.  If you want to be part of the problem, continue being stupid if you like!  Otherwise, accept the need to limit what we do for the common good.  The life you save could be yours?  Please forget the macho BS.  Few new laws are totally effective, but one has to start somewhere and then work toward the common goal which is making driving safe for everyone.  If you are not mature enough to understand this, then you are too immature to deserve a license to drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no " right " to drive .
It is a privilege .
States have a " right " to enact laws for the common good .
No one has to follow them .
But , there are penalties for not doing so .
Everyone is " free " to be a mindless idiot , but if caught they will be ticketed .
The purpose is to make driving safe for everyone .
Not every thing that makes driving unsafe is against the law , but IMHO , texting or cell phoning have become a problem that can not be ignored .
If you want to be part of the problem , continue being stupid if you like !
Otherwise , accept the need to limit what we do for the common good .
The life you save could be yours ?
Please forget the macho BS .
Few new laws are totally effective , but one has to start somewhere and then work toward the common goal which is making driving safe for everyone .
If you are not mature enough to understand this , then you are too immature to deserve a license to drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no "right" to drive.
It is a privilege.
States have a "right" to enact laws for the common good.
No one has to follow them.
But, there are penalties for not doing so.
Everyone is "free" to be a mindless idiot, but if caught they will be ticketed.
The purpose is to make driving safe for everyone.
Not every thing that makes driving unsafe is against the law, but IMHO, texting or cell phoning have become a problem that can not be ignored.
If you want to be part of the problem, continue being stupid if you like!
Otherwise, accept the need to limit what we do for the common good.
The life you save could be yours?
Please forget the macho BS.
Few new laws are totally effective, but one has to start somewhere and then work toward the common goal which is making driving safe for everyone.
If you are not mature enough to understand this, then you are too immature to deserve a license to drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30981356</id>
	<title>How does talking on a cell phone cause an accident</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265040720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people I see talking &amp; driving are all going 15 mph!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people I see talking &amp; driving are all going 15 mph !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people I see talking &amp; driving are all going 15 mph!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957934</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Frohboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264773480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like to commute to work in (what is to me) a self-driving vehicle. I play on my DS while doing it.</p><p>I call it a subway. (Though buses and trains also work.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like to commute to work in ( what is to me ) a self-driving vehicle .
I play on my DS while doing it.I call it a subway .
( Though buses and trains also work .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like to commute to work in (what is to me) a self-driving vehicle.
I play on my DS while doing it.I call it a subway.
(Though buses and trains also work.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958740</id>
	<title>Common Confusion?</title>
	<author>Drago3711</author>
	<datestamp>1264780380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps its just me, but it seems like a few people may have jumped the gun here.  There is a major distinction between correlation and causation. More to the point, just because in x\% of accidents a cell phone was involved does not in any way show that by removing that factor you're going to magically stop those accidents. I'd be willing to bet over half of all car accident victims listen to the radio, and yet I do not see any government banning their use in cars.

((yes this is a stretch, but it illustrates my point))</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps its just me , but it seems like a few people may have jumped the gun here .
There is a major distinction between correlation and causation .
More to the point , just because in x \ % of accidents a cell phone was involved does not in any way show that by removing that factor you 're going to magically stop those accidents .
I 'd be willing to bet over half of all car accident victims listen to the radio , and yet I do not see any government banning their use in cars .
( ( yes this is a stretch , but it illustrates my point ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps its just me, but it seems like a few people may have jumped the gun here.
There is a major distinction between correlation and causation.
More to the point, just because in x\% of accidents a cell phone was involved does not in any way show that by removing that factor you're going to magically stop those accidents.
I'd be willing to bet over half of all car accident victims listen to the radio, and yet I do not see any government banning their use in cars.
((yes this is a stretch, but it illustrates my point))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30963526</id>
	<title>sadfasf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264875960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure someone has already pointed this out, but a Carnegie Mellon University study proved that ALL conversations, be it cell-phone or otherwise contribute to a 40\% drop in attention (oh and radio too).  So if we ban cell phones, we have to ban things like screaming babies, doggies, a hyper mother-in-law, and yes, the radio.  This is just an effort to demonize the cell-phone.  Sadly no this message is a very small tree falling in a VERY large forest, so none of this ever happened.</p><p>-S</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure someone has already pointed this out , but a Carnegie Mellon University study proved that ALL conversations , be it cell-phone or otherwise contribute to a 40 \ % drop in attention ( oh and radio too ) .
So if we ban cell phones , we have to ban things like screaming babies , doggies , a hyper mother-in-law , and yes , the radio .
This is just an effort to demonize the cell-phone .
Sadly no this message is a very small tree falling in a VERY large forest , so none of this ever happened.-S</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure someone has already pointed this out, but a Carnegie Mellon University study proved that ALL conversations, be it cell-phone or otherwise contribute to a 40\% drop in attention (oh and radio too).
So if we ban cell phones, we have to ban things like screaming babies, doggies, a hyper mother-in-law, and yes, the radio.
This is just an effort to demonize the cell-phone.
Sadly no this message is a very small tree falling in a VERY large forest, so none of this ever happened.-S</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958538</id>
	<title>Re:There are benefits</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1264778460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That,s if you even survive the crash in the first place,insurance company's don't pay dead people,they pay the survivors</htmltext>
<tokenext>That,s if you even survive the crash in the first place,insurance company 's do n't pay dead people,they pay the survivors</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That,s if you even survive the crash in the first place,insurance company's don't pay dead people,they pay the survivors</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957336</id>
	<title>Mandatory retesting and license suspensions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264770000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are people who are chronic crashers. Yet, until they actually kill someone, their licenses are rarely revoked or even temporarily suspended. They and other drivers aren't retested to ensure competency and the competency of the original tester. Canada's Worst Driver is a good show for demonstrating exactly why both of these are a problem: people on the show all have licenses, but many get in double-digit numbers of crashes every year, and often attest that they passed their original driver's test because the tester just didn't give a damn.</p><p>Both of these things need to change to really bring down the accident rate, but they're obviously more expensive than simply passing an unenforceable distraction ban. Guaranteed that stricter penalties for repeat offenders, and mandatory retesting every X years or after every crash would reduce accident rates considerably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are people who are chronic crashers .
Yet , until they actually kill someone , their licenses are rarely revoked or even temporarily suspended .
They and other drivers are n't retested to ensure competency and the competency of the original tester .
Canada 's Worst Driver is a good show for demonstrating exactly why both of these are a problem : people on the show all have licenses , but many get in double-digit numbers of crashes every year , and often attest that they passed their original driver 's test because the tester just did n't give a damn.Both of these things need to change to really bring down the accident rate , but they 're obviously more expensive than simply passing an unenforceable distraction ban .
Guaranteed that stricter penalties for repeat offenders , and mandatory retesting every X years or after every crash would reduce accident rates considerably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are people who are chronic crashers.
Yet, until they actually kill someone, their licenses are rarely revoked or even temporarily suspended.
They and other drivers aren't retested to ensure competency and the competency of the original tester.
Canada's Worst Driver is a good show for demonstrating exactly why both of these are a problem: people on the show all have licenses, but many get in double-digit numbers of crashes every year, and often attest that they passed their original driver's test because the tester just didn't give a damn.Both of these things need to change to really bring down the accident rate, but they're obviously more expensive than simply passing an unenforceable distraction ban.
Guaranteed that stricter penalties for repeat offenders, and mandatory retesting every X years or after every crash would reduce accident rates considerably.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958154</id>
	<title>Easy Solution</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1264775160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just replace the airbag with a sharp metal spike. People will be MUCH more careful when driving.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just replace the airbag with a sharp metal spike .
People will be MUCH more careful when driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just replace the airbag with a sharp metal spike.
People will be MUCH more careful when driving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958030</id>
	<title>Re:Speeding is against the law, too</title>
	<author>Carnildo</author>
	<datestamp>1264774200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people who speed will go the socially-acceptable 4mph over the speed limit, while almost everyone considers going 60mph in a 25mph zone to be dangerous and unacceptable.  The problem right now is that driving while talking is socially considered the equivalent of going 4mph over, rather than the equivalent of going 35 over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people who speed will go the socially-acceptable 4mph over the speed limit , while almost everyone considers going 60mph in a 25mph zone to be dangerous and unacceptable .
The problem right now is that driving while talking is socially considered the equivalent of going 4mph over , rather than the equivalent of going 35 over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people who speed will go the socially-acceptable 4mph over the speed limit, while almost everyone considers going 60mph in a 25mph zone to be dangerous and unacceptable.
The problem right now is that driving while talking is socially considered the equivalent of going 4mph over, rather than the equivalent of going 35 over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957358</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1264770060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Exactly.  Cars are unsafe primarily because of the meat popsicle behind the wheel.  I've been saying that for years.</p></div><p>
Mr Toyota chairman - is that you?
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Cars are unsafe primarily because of the meat popsicle behind the wheel .
I 've been saying that for years .
Mr Toyota chairman - is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Cars are unsafe primarily because of the meat popsicle behind the wheel.
I've been saying that for years.
Mr Toyota chairman - is that you?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957190</id>
	<title>It's not a ban in Washington</title>
	<author>ipb</author>
	<datestamp>1264769280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a secondary offense and you have to do something else wrong before they'll pull you over.<br>Until it's a real ban with real consequences you won't see a behavior change because most drivers figure they won't be pulled over for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a secondary offense and you have to do something else wrong before they 'll pull you over.Until it 's a real ban with real consequences you wo n't see a behavior change because most drivers figure they wo n't be pulled over for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a secondary offense and you have to do something else wrong before they'll pull you over.Until it's a real ban with real consequences you won't see a behavior change because most drivers figure they won't be pulled over for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958276</id>
	<title>Fine with me</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1264776060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Eventually, this would culminate in banning manual vehicles on major highways in about 2050-2060</p></div><p>It will take away my livelihood but that's okay--in all probability I'll be quite dead by then. Maybe even retired.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually , this would culminate in banning manual vehicles on major highways in about 2050-2060It will take away my livelihood but that 's okay--in all probability I 'll be quite dead by then .
Maybe even retired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually, this would culminate in banning manual vehicles on major highways in about 2050-2060It will take away my livelihood but that's okay--in all probability I'll be quite dead by then.
Maybe even retired.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957316</id>
	<title>I said it before...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264769880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll say it again: "Training."</p><p>Add it to the drivers education curriculum and make it part of the mandatory drivers license examination. Maybe make a new class of license...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll say it again : " Training .
" Add it to the drivers education curriculum and make it part of the mandatory drivers license examination .
Maybe make a new class of license.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll say it again: "Training.
"Add it to the drivers education curriculum and make it part of the mandatory drivers license examination.
Maybe make a new class of license...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959156</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a ban in Washington</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264783620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're talking about making it a primary offense. Saw it on KREM the other night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're talking about making it a primary offense .
Saw it on KREM the other night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're talking about making it a primary offense.
Saw it on KREM the other night.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957058</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>cstdenis</author>
	<datestamp>1264768620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The kind of people who crash due to texting and driving, and the same kind of people who will keep texting and driving regardless of the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The kind of people who crash due to texting and driving , and the same kind of people who will keep texting and driving regardless of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kind of people who crash due to texting and driving, and the same kind of people who will keep texting and driving regardless of the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260</id>
	<title>Woman can't stop texting, wrecks 3 cars in 3 years</title>
	<author>TimHunter</author>
	<datestamp>1264769640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a story from my local newspaper about a 20-something woman who's totaled 3 cars in the past 3 years because she was texting while driving. Apparently she learned this from her dad, who is unable to spend 2 hours just driving and must spend the time on the phone and doing his email.

</p><p>Why isn't she in jail? Why aren't we treating driving-while-texting the same way we treat driving while intoxicated? Do we have to wait until she (or her dad) kills somebody?

<a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local\_state/story/301086.html" title="newsobserver.com">http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local\_state/story/301086.html</a> [newsobserver.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a story from my local newspaper about a 20-something woman who 's totaled 3 cars in the past 3 years because she was texting while driving .
Apparently she learned this from her dad , who is unable to spend 2 hours just driving and must spend the time on the phone and doing his email .
Why is n't she in jail ?
Why are n't we treating driving-while-texting the same way we treat driving while intoxicated ?
Do we have to wait until she ( or her dad ) kills somebody ?
http : //www.newsobserver.com/news/local \ _state/story/301086.html [ newsobserver.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a story from my local newspaper about a 20-something woman who's totaled 3 cars in the past 3 years because she was texting while driving.
Apparently she learned this from her dad, who is unable to spend 2 hours just driving and must spend the time on the phone and doing his email.
Why isn't she in jail?
Why aren't we treating driving-while-texting the same way we treat driving while intoxicated?
Do we have to wait until she (or her dad) kills somebody?
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local\_state/story/301086.html [newsobserver.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1264770780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This doesn't surprise me too much.  One interesting fact it does indicate is that the people who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who are in accidents.</p><p>Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars.  Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.</p></div><p>I'd love for self-driving cars to happen, but I seriously doubt it ever will.  Not because of technology limitations, but because of liability: the first time someone manages to provoke a wreck with a self-driving car, the companies responsible for designing its hardware and software will be sued out of business because they have deep pockets.  The military will have self-driving aircraft, ships, and trucks for decades and we'll still be driving our own cars.  It would take an act of Congress to change this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't surprise me too much .
One interesting fact it does indicate is that the people who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who are in accidents.Personally , I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars .
Our communications technology is at a point where it 's a serious waste of a human being 's time to be driving , and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.I 'd love for self-driving cars to happen , but I seriously doubt it ever will .
Not because of technology limitations , but because of liability : the first time someone manages to provoke a wreck with a self-driving car , the companies responsible for designing its hardware and software will be sued out of business because they have deep pockets .
The military will have self-driving aircraft , ships , and trucks for decades and we 'll still be driving our own cars .
It would take an act of Congress to change this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't surprise me too much.
One interesting fact it does indicate is that the people who very conscientiously obey the law are not strongly represented in those who are in accidents.Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars.
Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.I'd love for self-driving cars to happen, but I seriously doubt it ever will.
Not because of technology limitations, but because of liability: the first time someone manages to provoke a wreck with a self-driving car, the companies responsible for designing its hardware and software will be sued out of business because they have deep pockets.
The military will have self-driving aircraft, ships, and trucks for decades and we'll still be driving our own cars.
It would take an act of Congress to change this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957428</id>
	<title>Bad drivers are still bad drivers?</title>
	<author>trenton</author>
	<datestamp>1264770540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could it be that bad driving causes crashes? So, eliminating cell phone usage results in people still being bad drivers?

Or how about a correlation between people more likely to obey laws and those that are good drivers? Enacting a prohibition might make the better drivers less distracted, but leave the bad drivers still bad drivers and still talking on their cell phones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be that bad driving causes crashes ?
So , eliminating cell phone usage results in people still being bad drivers ?
Or how about a correlation between people more likely to obey laws and those that are good drivers ?
Enacting a prohibition might make the better drivers less distracted , but leave the bad drivers still bad drivers and still talking on their cell phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be that bad driving causes crashes?
So, eliminating cell phone usage results in people still being bad drivers?
Or how about a correlation between people more likely to obey laws and those that are good drivers?
Enacting a prohibition might make the better drivers less distracted, but leave the bad drivers still bad drivers and still talking on their cell phones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959190</id>
	<title>Self Driving cars, huh?</title>
	<author>hellfire</author>
	<datestamp>1264783980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars</i></p><p>They are called trains, if you call the person driving for you part of the train.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving carsThey are called trains , if you call the person driving for you part of the train .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving carsThey are called trains, if you call the person driving for you part of the train.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958636</id>
	<title>Easier solution</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1264779360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you get in a wreck and you're on the phone or texting, your car insurer doesn't have to pay jackshit.
<p>
Now THAT would make most of it stop ultra-pronto.
</p><p>
Only the sociopathic rich, 'tards, and teenagers would do it.
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you get in a wreck and you 're on the phone or texting , your car insurer does n't have to pay jackshit .
Now THAT would make most of it stop ultra-pronto .
Only the sociopathic rich , 'tards , and teenagers would do it .
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you get in a wreck and you're on the phone or texting, your car insurer doesn't have to pay jackshit.
Now THAT would make most of it stop ultra-pronto.
Only the sociopathic rich, 'tards, and teenagers would do it.
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957204</id>
	<title>ORLY?</title>
	<author>AverageJoe8686</author>
	<datestamp>1264769400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like the DEA must be enforcing these laws...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like the DEA must be enforcing these laws.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like the DEA must be enforcing these laws...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30960160</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1264882980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wanna bet? Car accidents kill many times the number of people as terrorism, yet where does the money flow? Money goes to scary boogeymen, not rationally analyzed risks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wan na bet ?
Car accidents kill many times the number of people as terrorism , yet where does the money flow ?
Money goes to scary boogeymen , not rationally analyzed risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wanna bet?
Car accidents kill many times the number of people as terrorism, yet where does the money flow?
Money goes to scary boogeymen, not rationally analyzed risks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957418</id>
	<title>Sample Sizes...</title>
	<author>Paintballparrot</author>
	<datestamp>1264770360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York, Washington D.C., Connecticut, and California -- all states with currently enacted roadway text bans. Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted</p></div><p>

if your comparing COLLISIONS of 100 insured vehicles per year wouldn't the crash rate be 100\%? I'm assuming they mean numbers of collisions per 100 vehicles. Even so don't you think 100 is to small a sample size when there's tens of millions of vehicles in those areas? I really don't think 100 vehicles is enough to prove anything at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York , Washington D.C. , Connecticut , and California -- all states with currently enacted roadway text bans .
Despite those laws , monthly fluctuations in crash rates did n't change after bans were enacted if your comparing COLLISIONS of 100 insured vehicles per year would n't the crash rate be 100 \ % ?
I 'm assuming they mean numbers of collisions per 100 vehicles .
Even so do n't you think 100 is to small a sample size when there 's tens of millions of vehicles in those areas ?
I really do n't think 100 vehicles is enough to prove anything at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York, Washington D.C., Connecticut, and California -- all states with currently enacted roadway text bans.
Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted

if your comparing COLLISIONS of 100 insured vehicles per year wouldn't the crash rate be 100\%?
I'm assuming they mean numbers of collisions per 100 vehicles.
Even so don't you think 100 is to small a sample size when there's tens of millions of vehicles in those areas?
I really don't think 100 vehicles is enough to prove anything at all.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957568</id>
	<title>Hands-free is not the answer</title>
	<author>DarthBling</author>
	<datestamp>1264771320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hands-Free = Holding Phone Up to Ear<br> <br> <br>


It doesn't matter if you're using a hands-free device or not. Drivers are still talking having conversations on the phone and failing to devote enough attention to driving.   Here on Slashdot, I've seen numerous studies and anecdotes about phone conversations taking up more of a person&rsquo;s attention than a normal person-to-person in-the-same-room (or car) conversation.<br> <br>
All the hands-free law does is force people who are too busy talking on their cell phone to start driving with two hands on the wheel instead of one. <br> <br>
You want to lower the accident rate caused by cell phones?  Ban them. Completely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hands-Free = Holding Phone Up to Ear It does n't matter if you 're using a hands-free device or not .
Drivers are still talking having conversations on the phone and failing to devote enough attention to driving .
Here on Slashdot , I 've seen numerous studies and anecdotes about phone conversations taking up more of a person    s attention than a normal person-to-person in-the-same-room ( or car ) conversation .
All the hands-free law does is force people who are too busy talking on their cell phone to start driving with two hands on the wheel instead of one .
You want to lower the accident rate caused by cell phones ?
Ban them .
Completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hands-Free = Holding Phone Up to Ear  


It doesn't matter if you're using a hands-free device or not.
Drivers are still talking having conversations on the phone and failing to devote enough attention to driving.
Here on Slashdot, I've seen numerous studies and anecdotes about phone conversations taking up more of a person’s attention than a normal person-to-person in-the-same-room (or car) conversation.
All the hands-free law does is force people who are too busy talking on their cell phone to start driving with two hands on the wheel instead of one.
You want to lower the accident rate caused by cell phones?
Ban them.
Completely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958272</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Vegeta99</author>
	<datestamp>1264776000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I wonder who would take the accident liability on that one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I wonder who would take the accident liability on that one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I wonder who would take the accident liability on that one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30956990</id>
	<title>Compliance Rates &amp; Hands-Free Use</title>
	<author>Kelson</author>
	<datestamp>1264768260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because a behavior is banned doesn't mean people have actually stopped doing it.  California's ban has been in place for a year and a half now, and I still regularly see people driving while talking on their phones. So hand-held phone use has reduced in these areas. <strong>How much</strong>?</p><p>The other thing to consider is that at least the California law allows you to use your cell phone while driving as long as you use a hand-free system, like an earpiece or a car system that acts as a speakerphone.  I seem to recall that other studies have shown that hands-free cell phone conversations are <strong>just as distracting</strong> as conversations carried out while holding the phone.  (The article spends a whopping one sentence on this.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because a behavior is banned does n't mean people have actually stopped doing it .
California 's ban has been in place for a year and a half now , and I still regularly see people driving while talking on their phones .
So hand-held phone use has reduced in these areas .
How much ? The other thing to consider is that at least the California law allows you to use your cell phone while driving as long as you use a hand-free system , like an earpiece or a car system that acts as a speakerphone .
I seem to recall that other studies have shown that hands-free cell phone conversations are just as distracting as conversations carried out while holding the phone .
( The article spends a whopping one sentence on this .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because a behavior is banned doesn't mean people have actually stopped doing it.
California's ban has been in place for a year and a half now, and I still regularly see people driving while talking on their phones.
So hand-held phone use has reduced in these areas.
How much?The other thing to consider is that at least the California law allows you to use your cell phone while driving as long as you use a hand-free system, like an earpiece or a car system that acts as a speakerphone.
I seem to recall that other studies have shown that hands-free cell phone conversations are just as distracting as conversations carried out while holding the phone.
(The article spends a whopping one sentence on this.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959600</id>
	<title>Re:Give the automated enforcement technologies tim</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264788900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't work - cell phones talk to the tower sometimes without having any user interaction at all. And what about the "I was scratching my ear" defense?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't work - cell phones talk to the tower sometimes without having any user interaction at all .
And what about the " I was scratching my ear " defense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't work - cell phones talk to the tower sometimes without having any user interaction at all.
And what about the "I was scratching my ear" defense?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957492</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264770900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed a step.  All children, dogs, cats, homeless people, bicycles, food carts, and anything else that can possibly end up in a roadway must be fitted with a transponder.  Otherwise the automated vehicles will not see it.</p><p>This will lead to a virtual slaughter of dogs and cats in suburban areas.  Picture a cat with a 3lb transponder with 30day battery.  Pretty funny - check for the video on YouTube.  Next picture cat and transponder in the street after the batteries die.</p><p>Sorry, on some limited access highways some sort of automated driving makes sense, in a limited fashion.  Outside of that, forget it.  The road is shared with too many non-vehicle objects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed a step .
All children , dogs , cats , homeless people , bicycles , food carts , and anything else that can possibly end up in a roadway must be fitted with a transponder .
Otherwise the automated vehicles will not see it.This will lead to a virtual slaughter of dogs and cats in suburban areas .
Picture a cat with a 3lb transponder with 30day battery .
Pretty funny - check for the video on YouTube .
Next picture cat and transponder in the street after the batteries die.Sorry , on some limited access highways some sort of automated driving makes sense , in a limited fashion .
Outside of that , forget it .
The road is shared with too many non-vehicle objects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed a step.
All children, dogs, cats, homeless people, bicycles, food carts, and anything else that can possibly end up in a roadway must be fitted with a transponder.
Otherwise the automated vehicles will not see it.This will lead to a virtual slaughter of dogs and cats in suburban areas.
Picture a cat with a 3lb transponder with 30day battery.
Pretty funny - check for the video on YouTube.
Next picture cat and transponder in the street after the batteries die.Sorry, on some limited access highways some sort of automated driving makes sense, in a limited fashion.
Outside of that, forget it.
The road is shared with too many non-vehicle objects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957824</id>
	<title>We're saved</title>
	<author>chortick</author>
	<datestamp>1264772700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since there were no car crashes before the existence of cell phones, eliminating cell phone usage will completely eliminate car crashes.

In other news, government prohibition of illegal drugs has completely eliminated drug abuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since there were no car crashes before the existence of cell phones , eliminating cell phone usage will completely eliminate car crashes .
In other news , government prohibition of illegal drugs has completely eliminated drug abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since there were no car crashes before the existence of cell phones, eliminating cell phone usage will completely eliminate car crashes.
In other news, government prohibition of illegal drugs has completely eliminated drug abuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958054</id>
	<title>Re:There are benefits</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1264774380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought when somebody rear ends you it is automagically their fault because they weren't in control of the car and haven't maintained proper distance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought when somebody rear ends you it is automagically their fault because they were n't in control of the car and have n't maintained proper distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought when somebody rear ends you it is automagically their fault because they weren't in control of the car and haven't maintained proper distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958668</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Ichijo</author>
	<datestamp>1264779660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can you imagine the howl from GM if anybody managed to seriously propose that GM be liable for car accidents involving their vehicle?</p></div></blockquote><p>GM wouldn't care. They would pass the cost onto their customers in the form of a monthly payment and call it "liability insurance." Guess who would care? The insurance companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine the howl from GM if anybody managed to seriously propose that GM be liable for car accidents involving their vehicle ? GM would n't care .
They would pass the cost onto their customers in the form of a monthly payment and call it " liability insurance .
" Guess who would care ?
The insurance companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine the howl from GM if anybody managed to seriously propose that GM be liable for car accidents involving their vehicle?GM wouldn't care.
They would pass the cost onto their customers in the form of a monthly payment and call it "liability insurance.
" Guess who would care?
The insurance companies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30982026</id>
	<title>Enforcability and Deterrent.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1265043420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you make a law, doesn't mean it will actually do anything at all.</p><p>Both the US and Canada have a boat load of laws that for all intents and purposes are not enforced, and that everyone ignores.</p><p>Sometimes this is because the law is old and archaic and no longer relevant, but ofttimes is is due to the law simply being unenforceable or the enforces of the law (police, courts) are unwilling (usually budget constraints) to enforce it.</p><p>In addition, even if you have both of those things working, if the response or punishment is so slight, and your chances of getting caught so great, then most people will just ignore it anyway.</p><p>What would be interesting is a study on since the law coming into effect, how many people have actually been charged, and what sort of legal decisions were made (fine etc...).</p><p>I would bet that the police could care less about this law, cannot be bothered to enforce it, and even if they did the fines are so low, that most people will just take there chances, and in the off chance they actually get caught, will just pay a small fine and call it the small price you pay for being able to do that activity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you make a law , does n't mean it will actually do anything at all.Both the US and Canada have a boat load of laws that for all intents and purposes are not enforced , and that everyone ignores.Sometimes this is because the law is old and archaic and no longer relevant , but ofttimes is is due to the law simply being unenforceable or the enforces of the law ( police , courts ) are unwilling ( usually budget constraints ) to enforce it.In addition , even if you have both of those things working , if the response or punishment is so slight , and your chances of getting caught so great , then most people will just ignore it anyway.What would be interesting is a study on since the law coming into effect , how many people have actually been charged , and what sort of legal decisions were made ( fine etc... ) .I would bet that the police could care less about this law , can not be bothered to enforce it , and even if they did the fines are so low , that most people will just take there chances , and in the off chance they actually get caught , will just pay a small fine and call it the small price you pay for being able to do that activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you make a law, doesn't mean it will actually do anything at all.Both the US and Canada have a boat load of laws that for all intents and purposes are not enforced, and that everyone ignores.Sometimes this is because the law is old and archaic and no longer relevant, but ofttimes is is due to the law simply being unenforceable or the enforces of the law (police, courts) are unwilling (usually budget constraints) to enforce it.In addition, even if you have both of those things working, if the response or punishment is so slight, and your chances of getting caught so great, then most people will just ignore it anyway.What would be interesting is a study on since the law coming into effect, how many people have actually been charged, and what sort of legal decisions were made (fine etc...).I would bet that the police could care less about this law, cannot be bothered to enforce it, and even if they did the fines are so low, that most people will just take there chances, and in the off chance they actually get caught, will just pay a small fine and call it the small price you pay for being able to do that activity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957796</id>
	<title>Seems like old albert saw a pattern.</title>
	<author>compsci06</author>
	<datestamp>1264772640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like old albert saw a pattern.

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced." - Albert Einstein</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like old albert saw a pattern .
" The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law .
For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which can not be enforced .
" - Albert Einstein</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like old albert saw a pattern.
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law.
For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.
" - Albert Einstein</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957472</id>
	<title>it might help</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1264770780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>car analogy anybody?</htmltext>
<tokenext>car analogy anybody ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>car analogy anybody?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957426</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1264770480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds good in theory, but I'll reiterate what I said when the Robocar article came around.  Robocar failed to address it, and so has everybody else.  For that to happen, there would have to be a major shift in the liability regime.  In particular, liability would lodge with the logical actor, namely the car manufacturer.  Can you imagine the howl from GM if anybody managed to seriously propose that GM be liable for car accidents involving their vehicle?  ALL accidents involving their vehicle?  Sure, they're liable for design flaws already, and for manufacturing flaws like "the wheels came off", but to expand that to the minute-by-minute navigation of the vehicle?  The swarm of lobbyists that would descend on Washington to crush that idea would be of locust proportions.  Every manufacturer would unleash the swarms, and whoever proposed it would probably die in a car accident.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Maybe someday there will be some sort of widely deployed fully automated transportation.  It won't look much like cars on roads though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds good in theory , but I 'll reiterate what I said when the Robocar article came around .
Robocar failed to address it , and so has everybody else .
For that to happen , there would have to be a major shift in the liability regime .
In particular , liability would lodge with the logical actor , namely the car manufacturer .
Can you imagine the howl from GM if anybody managed to seriously propose that GM be liable for car accidents involving their vehicle ?
ALL accidents involving their vehicle ?
Sure , they 're liable for design flaws already , and for manufacturing flaws like " the wheels came off " , but to expand that to the minute-by-minute navigation of the vehicle ?
The swarm of lobbyists that would descend on Washington to crush that idea would be of locust proportions .
Every manufacturer would unleash the swarms , and whoever proposed it would probably die in a car accident .
: PMaybe someday there will be some sort of widely deployed fully automated transportation .
It wo n't look much like cars on roads though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds good in theory, but I'll reiterate what I said when the Robocar article came around.
Robocar failed to address it, and so has everybody else.
For that to happen, there would have to be a major shift in the liability regime.
In particular, liability would lodge with the logical actor, namely the car manufacturer.
Can you imagine the howl from GM if anybody managed to seriously propose that GM be liable for car accidents involving their vehicle?
ALL accidents involving their vehicle?
Sure, they're liable for design flaws already, and for manufacturing flaws like "the wheels came off", but to expand that to the minute-by-minute navigation of the vehicle?
The swarm of lobbyists that would descend on Washington to crush that idea would be of locust proportions.
Every manufacturer would unleash the swarms, and whoever proposed it would probably die in a car accident.
:PMaybe someday there will be some sort of widely deployed fully automated transportation.
It won't look much like cars on roads though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957272</id>
	<title>Give the automated enforcement technologies time</title>
	<author>bjdevil66</author>
	<datestamp>1264769700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key is actual enforcement.</p><p>If companies like Redflex or ATS - photo enforcement companies - get the technology working, and there's a buck to be made, they will GLADLY start tracking cell phone usage with a combination of antennas and automated optical photo scanning.All they'd need is an antenna to detect nearby cell phone signals at a certain threshold - and then start snapping pictures of ALL cars - drivers and their license plates, of course - that go by until the signal drops again. Then you have automated software flag people with their hands up to their ears (or maybe even looking down at a device, if they work hard enough on the software), and then send those positives onto real people to verify the driver's transgression. Two weeks later, BAM - a ticket in your mailbox and a cool chunk in the pocket of the photo company.</p><p>With that level of enforcement you'd quickly see a drop in cellphone usage. (Would accidents go down because of them? Possibly - but if they didn't, you'd never hear that side of the story as the politicians (and the companies) grow addicted to their newfound "sin tax" revenue.)</p><p>Heck - why stop there with just cellphones and texting? If someone is flagged by their software for NOT LOOKING AHEAD AT THE ROAD a certain percentage of the time, cite them for "reckless driving"... Why not? That's a dangerous behavior - and there's money to be made... </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key is actual enforcement.If companies like Redflex or ATS - photo enforcement companies - get the technology working , and there 's a buck to be made , they will GLADLY start tracking cell phone usage with a combination of antennas and automated optical photo scanning.All they 'd need is an antenna to detect nearby cell phone signals at a certain threshold - and then start snapping pictures of ALL cars - drivers and their license plates , of course - that go by until the signal drops again .
Then you have automated software flag people with their hands up to their ears ( or maybe even looking down at a device , if they work hard enough on the software ) , and then send those positives onto real people to verify the driver 's transgression .
Two weeks later , BAM - a ticket in your mailbox and a cool chunk in the pocket of the photo company.With that level of enforcement you 'd quickly see a drop in cellphone usage .
( Would accidents go down because of them ?
Possibly - but if they did n't , you 'd never hear that side of the story as the politicians ( and the companies ) grow addicted to their newfound " sin tax " revenue .
) Heck - why stop there with just cellphones and texting ?
If someone is flagged by their software for NOT LOOKING AHEAD AT THE ROAD a certain percentage of the time , cite them for " reckless driving " ... Why not ?
That 's a dangerous behavior - and there 's money to be made.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key is actual enforcement.If companies like Redflex or ATS - photo enforcement companies - get the technology working, and there's a buck to be made, they will GLADLY start tracking cell phone usage with a combination of antennas and automated optical photo scanning.All they'd need is an antenna to detect nearby cell phone signals at a certain threshold - and then start snapping pictures of ALL cars - drivers and their license plates, of course - that go by until the signal drops again.
Then you have automated software flag people with their hands up to their ears (or maybe even looking down at a device, if they work hard enough on the software), and then send those positives onto real people to verify the driver's transgression.
Two weeks later, BAM - a ticket in your mailbox and a cool chunk in the pocket of the photo company.With that level of enforcement you'd quickly see a drop in cellphone usage.
(Would accidents go down because of them?
Possibly - but if they didn't, you'd never hear that side of the story as the politicians (and the companies) grow addicted to their newfound "sin tax" revenue.
)Heck - why stop there with just cellphones and texting?
If someone is flagged by their software for NOT LOOKING AHEAD AT THE ROAD a certain percentage of the time, cite them for "reckless driving"... Why not?
That's a dangerous behavior - and there's money to be made... </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957402</id>
	<title>More laws?</title>
	<author>pspahn</author>
	<datestamp>1264770300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should we continue legislation that bars all these specific acts, or should we simply have a law that says, "people doing things that obstruct their driving ability will be ticketed".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should we continue legislation that bars all these specific acts , or should we simply have a law that says , " people doing things that obstruct their driving ability will be ticketed " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should we continue legislation that bars all these specific acts, or should we simply have a law that says, "people doing things that obstruct their driving ability will be ticketed".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957206</id>
	<title>simple remedy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264769400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>instant driving ban for the driver + car crushed<br>repeat offence and its jail</p><p>i certainly would think twice if i knew that i could lose my car and driving privileges for a year for a simple phone call</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>instant driving ban for the driver + car crushedrepeat offence and its jaili certainly would think twice if i knew that i could lose my car and driving privileges for a year for a simple phone call</tokentext>
<sentencetext>instant driving ban for the driver + car crushedrepeat offence and its jaili certainly would think twice if i knew that i could lose my car and driving privileges for a year for a simple phone call</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1264769040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  Cars are unsafe primarily because of the meat popsicle behind the wheel.  I've been saying that for years.</p><p>The government should mandate that:</p><ul>
<li>all new vehicles built after 2020 have the ability to drive completely unassisted.  Let the car companies scramble to figure out how to make it happen.</li><li>all cars contain transceivers that allow them to communicate (anonymously) with other vehicles nearby on the road.  Let the car manufacturers collaborate to figure out standards for that communication.</li><li>basic transponders be retrofitted into all non-new vehicles by 2025 that identify the exact location of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle, tire inflation warning status if available, slip indicator status if available, etc. and transmit a warning signal when brakes are activated.</li></ul><p>Eventually, this would culminate in banning manual vehicles on major highways in about 2050-2060 and putting mileage limits on their use elsewhere.  Insurance rates would no doubt help in making that part happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Cars are unsafe primarily because of the meat popsicle behind the wheel .
I 've been saying that for years.The government should mandate that : all new vehicles built after 2020 have the ability to drive completely unassisted .
Let the car companies scramble to figure out how to make it happen.all cars contain transceivers that allow them to communicate ( anonymously ) with other vehicles nearby on the road .
Let the car manufacturers collaborate to figure out standards for that communication.basic transponders be retrofitted into all non-new vehicles by 2025 that identify the exact location of the vehicle , the speed of the vehicle , tire inflation warning status if available , slip indicator status if available , etc .
and transmit a warning signal when brakes are activated.Eventually , this would culminate in banning manual vehicles on major highways in about 2050-2060 and putting mileage limits on their use elsewhere .
Insurance rates would no doubt help in making that part happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Cars are unsafe primarily because of the meat popsicle behind the wheel.
I've been saying that for years.The government should mandate that:
all new vehicles built after 2020 have the ability to drive completely unassisted.
Let the car companies scramble to figure out how to make it happen.all cars contain transceivers that allow them to communicate (anonymously) with other vehicles nearby on the road.
Let the car manufacturers collaborate to figure out standards for that communication.basic transponders be retrofitted into all non-new vehicles by 2025 that identify the exact location of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle, tire inflation warning status if available, slip indicator status if available, etc.
and transmit a warning signal when brakes are activated.Eventually, this would culminate in banning manual vehicles on major highways in about 2050-2060 and putting mileage limits on their use elsewhere.
Insurance rates would no doubt help in making that part happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958138</id>
	<title>Were the original studies suspect?</title>
	<author>Scareduck</author>
	<datestamp>1264775040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As Climategate showed, it's entirely possible to fix studies if enough pressure is applied to the peer review process. Has anyone looked into the studies "proving" that cellphone use and higher accident rates are highly correlative? It makes sense that they might be intuitively true, but <i>some</i> group of people that might be talking without a hands-free device are now using one. So, shouldn't that have had a positive effect on accidents, even if not all the people out there were following the law?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Climategate showed , it 's entirely possible to fix studies if enough pressure is applied to the peer review process .
Has anyone looked into the studies " proving " that cellphone use and higher accident rates are highly correlative ?
It makes sense that they might be intuitively true , but some group of people that might be talking without a hands-free device are now using one .
So , should n't that have had a positive effect on accidents , even if not all the people out there were following the law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Climategate showed, it's entirely possible to fix studies if enough pressure is applied to the peer review process.
Has anyone looked into the studies "proving" that cellphone use and higher accident rates are highly correlative?
It makes sense that they might be intuitively true, but some group of people that might be talking without a hands-free device are now using one.
So, shouldn't that have had a positive effect on accidents, even if not all the people out there were following the law?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957148</id>
	<title>Bad drivers will just find some other way to crash</title>
	<author>silverpig</author>
	<datestamp>1264769100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I guess if you ban cell phones and texting, they'll just pick up iPods or a BigMac and crash while chowing down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess if you ban cell phones and texting , they 'll just pick up iPods or a BigMac and crash while chowing down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess if you ban cell phones and texting, they'll just pick up iPods or a BigMac and crash while chowing down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958750</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264780440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, if i'm not the person driving the car, then i'm not responsible for what happens, including accidents.  the actual responsible party would in fact be the manufacturer of the self driving car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , if i 'm not the person driving the car , then i 'm not responsible for what happens , including accidents .
the actual responsible party would in fact be the manufacturer of the self driving car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, if i'm not the person driving the car, then i'm not responsible for what happens, including accidents.
the actual responsible party would in fact be the manufacturer of the self driving car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957378</id>
	<title>There are benefits</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1264770180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are some benefits. If a driver slams into me talking on a cellphone and there's a ban in my area, it's going to immediately move to a ticketable offense and therefore their insurance is going to pay to fix my car.</p><p>Whereas if they're talking on a cellphone and there's no law banning it then I have to prove they couldn't drive before I get my insurance money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some benefits .
If a driver slams into me talking on a cellphone and there 's a ban in my area , it 's going to immediately move to a ticketable offense and therefore their insurance is going to pay to fix my car.Whereas if they 're talking on a cellphone and there 's no law banning it then I have to prove they could n't drive before I get my insurance money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some benefits.
If a driver slams into me talking on a cellphone and there's a ban in my area, it's going to immediately move to a ticketable offense and therefore their insurance is going to pay to fix my car.Whereas if they're talking on a cellphone and there's no law banning it then I have to prove they couldn't drive before I get my insurance money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957088</id>
	<title>Speeding is against the law, too</title>
	<author>Some.Net(Guy)</author>
	<datestamp>1264768800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but we all do it anyways. How is this any different?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but we all do it anyways .
How is this any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but we all do it anyways.
How is this any different?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957966</id>
	<title>Re:Accident prone drivers are still using their ce</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264773720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Careful" using your cell phone while driving<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... hmmmmm. That's like saying I'm careful with the women I sleep with. Are my chances any better in not getting an STD? Have you ever drove somewhere, and realized<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what happened the last 5 minutes? One could argue that those 5 minutes you were oblivious as well, regardless of sub-consciously being "safe and law abiding". I am not arguing that accident prone people are not in the numbers of people still using them while driving, but accident prone people are in fact that, with and/or without the cell phone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Careful " using your cell phone while driving ... hmmmmm. That 's like saying I 'm careful with the women I sleep with .
Are my chances any better in not getting an STD ?
Have you ever drove somewhere , and realized ... what happened the last 5 minutes ?
One could argue that those 5 minutes you were oblivious as well , regardless of sub-consciously being " safe and law abiding " .
I am not arguing that accident prone people are not in the numbers of people still using them while driving , but accident prone people are in fact that , with and/or without the cell phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Careful" using your cell phone while driving ... hmmmmm. That's like saying I'm careful with the women I sleep with.
Are my chances any better in not getting an STD?
Have you ever drove somewhere, and realized ... what happened the last 5 minutes?
One could argue that those 5 minutes you were oblivious as well, regardless of sub-consciously being "safe and law abiding".
I am not arguing that accident prone people are not in the numbers of people still using them while driving, but accident prone people are in fact that, with and/or without the cell phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957064</id>
	<title>Not much change here</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1264768680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in BC Canada, where they've recently instated a no cellphone (without hands-free) while driving policies. This first month is warnings-only, and next month the fines start up at I believe $150 or more.</p><p>Thus far I've seen no reduction in people with their phones attached to their ear, usually driving like idiots. Nowadays I try to make it a point to see if a driver is chatting on the phone before assuming they're going to be making a safe/legal driving move (like not going the wrong way up a 1-way street, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in BC Canada , where they 've recently instated a no cellphone ( without hands-free ) while driving policies .
This first month is warnings-only , and next month the fines start up at I believe $ 150 or more.Thus far I 've seen no reduction in people with their phones attached to their ear , usually driving like idiots .
Nowadays I try to make it a point to see if a driver is chatting on the phone before assuming they 're going to be making a safe/legal driving move ( like not going the wrong way up a 1-way street , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in BC Canada, where they've recently instated a no cellphone (without hands-free) while driving policies.
This first month is warnings-only, and next month the fines start up at I believe $150 or more.Thus far I've seen no reduction in people with their phones attached to their ear, usually driving like idiots.
Nowadays I try to make it a point to see if a driver is chatting on the phone before assuming they're going to be making a safe/legal driving move (like not going the wrong way up a 1-way street, etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958918</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>WGFCrafty</author>
	<datestamp>1264781700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The major cause of death is not cancer, it's heart disease.<p><div class="quote"><p>Leading Causes of Death
<br>
(Data are for the U.S.)

 <br> <br>
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
<br> <br>
    * Heart disease: 631,636<br>
    * Cancer: 559,888<br>
    * Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119<br>
    * Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583<br>
    * Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599<br>
    * Diabetes: 72,449<br>
    * Alzheimer's disease: 72,432<br>
    * Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326<br>
    * Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344<br>
    * Septicemia: 34,234<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htm" title="cdc.gov">Source - 2006 data</a> [cdc.gov]</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The major cause of death is not cancer , it 's heart disease.Leading Causes of Death ( Data are for the U.S. ) Number of deaths for leading causes of death * Heart disease : 631,636 * Cancer : 559,888 * Stroke ( cerebrovascular diseases ) : 137,119 * Chronic lower respiratory diseases : 124,583 * Accidents ( unintentional injuries ) : 121,599 * Diabetes : 72,449 * Alzheimer 's disease : 72,432 * Influenza and Pneumonia : 56,326 * Nephritis , nephrotic syndrome , and nephrosis : 45,344 * Septicemia : 34,234 Source - 2006 data [ cdc.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The major cause of death is not cancer, it's heart disease.Leading Causes of Death

(Data are for the U.S.)

  
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
 
    * Heart disease: 631,636
    * Cancer: 559,888
    * Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
    * Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
    * Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
    * Diabetes: 72,449
    * Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
    * Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
    * Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
    * Septicemia: 34,234

Source - 2006 data [cdc.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957822</id>
	<title>Not enforced</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1264772700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one is afraid of being caught, at least in Cali. Everyone who did, still does - have a phone in their hands, and I've never seen anyone pulled over for cell phone use. Enacting laws that are not enforced is the first step in enabling the sense of "I can get away with it". Be it jaywalking or littering, if there is a law, it should be enforced, and the fines should include the cost of enforcement. Ultimately if the required cost doesn't justify the subsequent fine, then the laws need to be changed to reflect that. If law is about order, then the laws we abide by must be enforceable.</p><p>Also, correlation is not causation!! This cannot be emphasized enough. Regardless of whether the science is sound or not, if their results are just at the "correlation" level, then they are NOT VERY SCIENTIFIC. These are <b>guesses with numbers</b>, which is far far far from any proof or truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is afraid of being caught , at least in Cali .
Everyone who did , still does - have a phone in their hands , and I 've never seen anyone pulled over for cell phone use .
Enacting laws that are not enforced is the first step in enabling the sense of " I can get away with it " .
Be it jaywalking or littering , if there is a law , it should be enforced , and the fines should include the cost of enforcement .
Ultimately if the required cost does n't justify the subsequent fine , then the laws need to be changed to reflect that .
If law is about order , then the laws we abide by must be enforceable.Also , correlation is not causation ! !
This can not be emphasized enough .
Regardless of whether the science is sound or not , if their results are just at the " correlation " level , then they are NOT VERY SCIENTIFIC .
These are guesses with numbers , which is far far far from any proof or truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is afraid of being caught, at least in Cali.
Everyone who did, still does - have a phone in their hands, and I've never seen anyone pulled over for cell phone use.
Enacting laws that are not enforced is the first step in enabling the sense of "I can get away with it".
Be it jaywalking or littering, if there is a law, it should be enforced, and the fines should include the cost of enforcement.
Ultimately if the required cost doesn't justify the subsequent fine, then the laws need to be changed to reflect that.
If law is about order, then the laws we abide by must be enforceable.Also, correlation is not causation!!
This cannot be emphasized enough.
Regardless of whether the science is sound or not, if their results are just at the "correlation" level, then they are NOT VERY SCIENTIFIC.
These are guesses with numbers, which is far far far from any proof or truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957420</id>
	<title>Re:Woman can't stop texting, wrecks 3 cars in 3 ye</title>
	<author>jayveekay</author>
	<datestamp>1264770420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replace the steering wheel airbag in her car with a 6 inch metal spike, and the problem will fix itself with the next totalled car.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replace the steering wheel airbag in her car with a 6 inch metal spike , and the problem will fix itself with the next totalled car .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replace the steering wheel airbag in her car with a 6 inch metal spike, and the problem will fix itself with the next totalled car.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957648</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264771800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars.  Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.</p></div><p>There's no need to "mandate" self-driving cars, just make them prolific and cheap to buy. Most people will WANT to not have to pay attention to the road when it gets boring (a.k.a. when you're at the highest risk of crashing), so let the car drive for you.</p><p>You should still be allowed to drive a car if you ENJOY doing it, there's no harm in that. Think Will Smith iRobot style (though driving manually probably should involve a lower speed limit than what they used in that movie).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars .
Our communications technology is at a point where it 's a serious waste of a human being 's time to be driving , and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.There 's no need to " mandate " self-driving cars , just make them prolific and cheap to buy .
Most people will WANT to not have to pay attention to the road when it gets boring ( a.k.a .
when you 're at the highest risk of crashing ) , so let the car drive for you.You should still be allowed to drive a car if you ENJOY doing it , there 's no harm in that .
Think Will Smith iRobot style ( though driving manually probably should involve a lower speed limit than what they used in that movie ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars.
Our communications technology is at a point where it's a serious waste of a human being's time to be driving, and that economic fact is going to be really hard to fight with law.There's no need to "mandate" self-driving cars, just make them prolific and cheap to buy.
Most people will WANT to not have to pay attention to the road when it gets boring (a.k.a.
when you're at the highest risk of crashing), so let the car drive for you.You should still be allowed to drive a car if you ENJOY doing it, there's no harm in that.
Think Will Smith iRobot style (though driving manually probably should involve a lower speed limit than what they used in that movie).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30967466</id>
	<title>Liability - go with Open Source</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1264864020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't want to ride in a car who's source code wasn't open to public review.  Though, I would also want a company I trusted to certify it (and I would pay them to do it), so there is still a liability issue.</p><p>Their liability should be limited though.  And that is an interesting legal question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't want to ride in a car who 's source code was n't open to public review .
Though , I would also want a company I trusted to certify it ( and I would pay them to do it ) , so there is still a liability issue.Their liability should be limited though .
And that is an interesting legal question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't want to ride in a car who's source code wasn't open to public review.
Though, I would also want a company I trusted to certify it (and I would pay them to do it), so there is still a liability issue.Their liability should be limited though.
And that is an interesting legal question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957222</id>
	<title>Sample size?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264769520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York, Washington D.C., Connecticut, and California</p></div><p>I'm not huge into math, and most of even the basic Statistics topics are over my head, but surely this can't be right.</p><p>There are about 41,000 - 43,000 traffic FATALITIES each year in the US alone; over a million fatalities worldwide. There are 2 or 3 million recorded traffic injuries in the US alone. Estimates range from 7 to 12 million accidents in total in the US every year.</p><p>I don't think 100 vehicles even comes close to meaning anything in a pool of around 10 million. Neither do I think it would matter if I'm misreading and it was 100 vehicles in each of those cities. Regardless of what they found, wouldn't their results fall well within statistical error or whatever?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York , Washington D.C. , Connecticut , and CaliforniaI 'm not huge into math , and most of even the basic Statistics topics are over my head , but surely this ca n't be right.There are about 41,000 - 43,000 traffic FATALITIES each year in the US alone ; over a million fatalities worldwide .
There are 2 or 3 million recorded traffic injuries in the US alone .
Estimates range from 7 to 12 million accidents in total in the US every year.I do n't think 100 vehicles even comes close to meaning anything in a pool of around 10 million .
Neither do I think it would matter if I 'm misreading and it was 100 vehicles in each of those cities .
Regardless of what they found , would n't their results fall well within statistical error or whatever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HLDI compared collisions of 100 insured vehicles per year in New York, Washington D.C., Connecticut, and CaliforniaI'm not huge into math, and most of even the basic Statistics topics are over my head, but surely this can't be right.There are about 41,000 - 43,000 traffic FATALITIES each year in the US alone; over a million fatalities worldwide.
There are 2 or 3 million recorded traffic injuries in the US alone.
Estimates range from 7 to 12 million accidents in total in the US every year.I don't think 100 vehicles even comes close to meaning anything in a pool of around 10 million.
Neither do I think it would matter if I'm misreading and it was 100 vehicles in each of those cities.
Regardless of what they found, wouldn't their results fall well within statistical error or whatever?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957564</id>
	<title>completely unenforced</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1264771260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've not seen or heard of a single instance of this being enforced and have seen a few situations where law enforcement should have done something but didn't. I saw only one copy radio on the loud speaker to put the phone down.<br><br>there is little to no compliance so who could the ban be effective?<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've not seen or heard of a single instance of this being enforced and have seen a few situations where law enforcement should have done something but did n't .
I saw only one copy radio on the loud speaker to put the phone down.there is little to no compliance so who could the ban be effective ? LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've not seen or heard of a single instance of this being enforced and have seen a few situations where law enforcement should have done something but didn't.
I saw only one copy radio on the loud speaker to put the phone down.there is little to no compliance so who could the ban be effective?LoB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30987798</id>
	<title>Re:Not too surprising</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1265022000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's more likely that the data they are getting is skewed:</p><p>"No officer!  I wasn't texting while driving!"</p><p>The time between the accident and the officer arriving on the scene is more than long enough to press "send" or "delete".  I really doubt that officers collect driver's cell phone numbers to correlate phone records against the time of the accident.  The only other option is if the driver is incapacitated or killed in the accident...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more likely that the data they are getting is skewed : " No officer !
I was n't texting while driving !
" The time between the accident and the officer arriving on the scene is more than long enough to press " send " or " delete " .
I really doubt that officers collect driver 's cell phone numbers to correlate phone records against the time of the accident .
The only other option is if the driver is incapacitated or killed in the accident.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more likely that the data they are getting is skewed:"No officer!
I wasn't texting while driving!
"The time between the accident and the officer arriving on the scene is more than long enough to press "send" or "delete".
I really doubt that officers collect driver's cell phone numbers to correlate phone records against the time of the accident.
The only other option is if the driver is incapacitated or killed in the accident...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958340</id>
	<title>LA County Sheriff above the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264776600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really enjoyed seeing an LA county sheriff deputy driving his cruiser and using his cellphone in Marina Del Rey this summer... Classic!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really enjoyed seeing an LA county sheriff deputy driving his cruiser and using his cellphone in Marina Del Rey this summer... Classic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really enjoyed seeing an LA county sheriff deputy driving his cruiser and using his cellphone in Marina Del Rey this summer... Classic!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30965110</id>
	<title>What about the other guy.</title>
	<author>niftymitch</author>
	<datestamp>1264843260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I am not texting and cell-phoning what about the other guy there is nothing said about the cause of accidents by other distracted drivers.

I know that texting is dangerous...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I am not texting and cell-phoning what about the other guy there is nothing said about the cause of accidents by other distracted drivers .
I know that texting is dangerous.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I am not texting and cell-phoning what about the other guy there is nothing said about the cause of accidents by other distracted drivers.
I know that texting is dangerous...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30966548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30965862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30961416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30983828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30960160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30960050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30960016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30963860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30961638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30967466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30987798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30968688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_2054214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30956990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30963860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30983828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30966548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30968688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30960016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30987798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30967466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957964
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30960160
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30960050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957426
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30965862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958668
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30961416
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30961638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30959758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30958302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_2054214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_2054214.30957966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
