JimInLoganSquare wrote:alysongrace wrote:ab wrote:I'd like to find the person who ratted and punch them square in the liver.
I'll help you
Me, too, so long as we can get there by El.
YoYoPedro wrote:I have noticed just as many people driving around holding their cellular handsets up to their ears as there were before the mobile phone ban, and I've even see a few cops driving around with their cellphone up to their ear in the cruiser.
johnny wrote:
I can't tell you how many accidents I have almost been in while on my motorcycle this year - almost always a result of cell phone-using drivers.
Didn't anyone see that episode of Mythbusters?
johnny wrote:YoYoPedro wrote:I have noticed just as many people driving around holding their cellular handsets up to their ears as there were before the mobile phone ban, and I've even see a few cops driving around with their cellphone up to their ear in the cruiser.
Oh, good gravy, you are right.
I can't tell you how many accidents I have almost been in while on my motorcycle this year - almost always a result of cell phone-using drivers.
Didn't anyone see that episode of Mythbusters?
These data demonstrate that the phone conversation itself resulted in significant slowing in the response to simulated traffic signals, as well as an increase in the likelihood of missing these signals. Moreover, the fact that hand-held and hands-free cell phones resulted in equivalent dual-task deficits indicates that the interference was not due to peripheral factors such as holding the phone while conversing.
Binko wrote:However, interestingly enough, I've read of several studies that show that driving and talking on a hands-free set is just as distracting as talking with one hand to your ear.
...
In other words, if safety is the issue, this study suggests you have to ban cell phone calls period, hands-free or not.
YoYoPedro wrote:
I have noticed just as many people driving around holding their cellular handsets up to their ears as there were before the mobile phone ban, and I've even see a few cops driving around with their cellphone up to their ear in the cruiser.
I guess enforcement of any law can be as selective as they want it to be.
Bruce wrote:
They sure weren't selective with me enforcing this law. I live in Indiana and got a ticket in Chicago for talking on my cellphone. Driver's license was confiscated and HAD to return to Chicago, go to court IN Chicago, and to top it off the ticket was dismissed because the cop didn't show up.
Bruce wrote:They sure weren't selective with me enforcing this law. I live in Indiana and got a ticket in Chicago for talking on my cellphone. Driver's license was confiscated and HAD to return to Chicago, go to court IN Chicago, and to top it off the ticket was dismissed because the cop didn't show up.
YoYoPedro wrote:I also believe in natural selection, and those who don't want to use such safety equipment will eventually eliminate themselves.
riddlemay wrote:[offtopic]Bruce, do you have a AAA "bond" card? Ever since I had my license confiscated by a bad cop over some dumb thing some twenty years ago, and I learned that this wouldn't have happened if I'd been able to show him a bond card (I still would have received a ticket, but would have kept my license, fergodsakes), I joined the Chicago Motor Club AAA thing, and have considered the $50 or whatever yearly membership fee a small price to pay for that never happening again.[/offtopic]
Pete wrote:
[slightly offtopic]That's only applicable if their fatal accident doesn't wound or injure anyone else - and they haven't spawned any offspring yet. Not really an effective outlook.[/slightly offtopic]
johnny wrote:Oh man, now I'm craving Hot Doug's.
johnny wrote:Back to the topic at hand:
Is Hot Doug's still serving foi-garnished dogs?
I'm assuming he can continue to do so because the foi would be considered a garnish?
Oh man, now I'm craving Hot Doug's.
DML wrote:Anyone interesting in getting rid of the ordinance?
The real way is to get rid of the people who voted for it. We need to have a list of those who voted for it and the opponent.
The election is in February.
In the 42nd, the pro-ordinance alderman is Natarus. His primary opponent is a guy named Brendan Reilly (formerly worked for Madigan and Vallas). Hopefully other people can add to this so that we can make a list of pro-ordinance people and the strongest opponent.
Mike G wrote:In any case, re Doug's, the last two times I went there the foie gras was worked into a duck sausage, not chunks on top as a year or so earlier.
DML wrote:Anyone interesting in getting rid of the ordinance?
The real way is to get rid of the people who voted for it. We need to have a list of those who voted for it and the opponent.
The election is in February.
In the 42nd, the pro-ordinance alderman is Natarus. His primary opponent is a guy named Brendan Reilly (formerly worked for Madigan and Vallas). Hopefully other people can add to this so that we can make a list of pro-ordinance people and the strongest opponent.
YoYoPedro wrote:If the city banned the sale of fur coats, could furriers just sell the linings and attach the fur for no charge?
Mike G wrote:Riddlemay, I tend to agree with you about single issues per se, but I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of aldermen go down for a silly, lots-of-noise-little-real-impact piece of grandstanding like this, just to keep them from passing the next 50 encroachments on our lives that sound good and do next to nothing.