http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
making a personal call on his cell phone.
The accident happened at the intersection of 9th Street and Imperial
Beach Boulevard last Tuesday. Eva Smart, 85, was within a few feet of
the curb in a crosswalk when a municipal bus rounded the corner and hit
her. Smart died in the hospital of multiple injuries.
Smart was walking home from an outing with her daughter when the
accident occurred. Family members left flowers at the curb where Smart
was killed, with a note reading, "Mama, we love you so very much."
Witnesses said the driver, Jesus Villaneuva, was talking on his cell
phone when the accident occurred. Villaneuva, 60, has worked for the
transit system for 12 years.
While it is not illegal to talk on cell phones while driving in
California, San Diego municipal bus drivers are prohibited from using
cell phones to make personal calls. Calls are only allowed in the case
of emergencies.
Officials say they are seeing more and more cases where cell phones
threaten public safety.
"You see your everyday driver driving with cell phones. Other drivers
and pedestrians need to be aware that they are not paying attention,"
said Franco Del Rosario, of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. "We get
complaints about it all the time. Swerving in and out of traffic, not
stopping for stop signs."
Villaneuva’s case is being referred to the district attorney for
possible prosecution, NBC 7/39 reported. He has been placed on
administrative leave.
Dave wrote:
> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
> SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
> killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
> making a personal call on his cell phone.
How do they know the reason he was distracted was his cell phone?
It’s an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind
of illogic in all sorts of arguments:
All men wear ties -> Sally is wearing a tie -> Sally is a man
Obviously wrong.
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127322328.603746.283370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Dave wrote:
>> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
>> SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
>> killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
>> making a personal call on his cell phone.
> How do they know the reason he was distracted was his cell phone?
> It’s an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind
> of illogic in all sorts of arguments:
> All men wear ties -> Sally is wearing a tie -> Sally is a man
> Obviously wrong.
Sally’s tie isn’t distracting.
–
—
jaybird
—
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <syhYe.25260$w46.6…@tornado.texas.rr.com>, jaybird wrote:
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127322328.603746.283370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
>> Dave wrote:
>>> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
>>> SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
>>> killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
>>> making a personal call on his cell phone.
>> How do they know the reason he was distracted was his cell phone?
>> It’s an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind
>> of illogic in all sorts of arguments:
>> All men wear ties -> Sally is wearing a tie -> Sally is a man
>> Obviously wrong.
> Sally’s tie isn’t distracting.
What if that’s all she’s wearing?
"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8bGdnQxMU9FjOKzeRVn-gw@comcast.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <syhYe.25260$w46.6…@tornado.texas.rr.com>, jaybird wrote:
>> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1127322328.603746.283370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
>>> Dave wrote:
>>>> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
>>>> SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
>>>> killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
>>>> making a personal call on his cell phone.
>>> How do they know the reason he was distracted was his cell phone?
>>> It’s an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind
>>> of illogic in all sorts of arguments:
>>> All men wear ties -> Sally is wearing a tie -> Sally is a man
>>> Obviously wrong.
>> Sally’s tie isn’t distracting.
> What if that’s all she’s wearing?
I’d probably crash a bus too. :o)
–
—
jaybird
—
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.
On 21 Sep 2005 09:00:14 -0700, "Dave" <davidpho…@gmail.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
>SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
>killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
>making a personal call on his cell phone.
>The accident happened at the intersection of 9th Street and Imperial
>Beach Boulevard last Tuesday. Eva Smart, 85, was within a few feet of
>the curb in a crosswalk when a municipal bus rounded the corner and hit
>her. Smart died in the hospital of multiple injuries.
>Smart was walking home from an outing with her daughter when the
>accident occurred. Family members left flowers at the curb where Smart
>was killed, with a note reading, "Mama, we love you so very much."
>Witnesses said the driver, Jesus Villaneuva, was talking on his cell
>phone when the accident occurred. Villaneuva, 60, has worked for the
>transit system for 12 years.
>While it is not illegal to talk on cell phones while driving in
>California, San Diego municipal bus drivers are prohibited from using
>cell phones to make personal calls. Calls are only allowed in the case
>of emergencies.
>Officials say they are seeing more and more cases where cell phones
>threaten public safety.
>"You see your everyday driver driving with cell phones. Other drivers
>and pedestrians need to be aware that they are not paying attention,"
>said Franco Del Rosario, of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. "We get
>complaints about it all the time. Swerving in and out of traffic, not
>stopping for stop signs."
>Villaneuva’s case is being referred to the district attorney for
>possible prosecution, NBC 7/39 reported. He has been placed on
>administrative leave.
Goddam – that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks
drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse.
This monster should be convicted of manslaughter and locked up forever
but i bet he doesn’t do a day. We are a nation of criminal coddlers.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Larry Bud wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
> > SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
> > killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
> > making a personal call on his cell phone.
> How do they know the reason he was distracted was his cell phone?
> It’s an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind
> of illogic in all sorts of arguments:
> All men wear ties -> Sally is wearing a tie -> Sally is a man
> Obviously wrong.
Left out of the article but on some televised reports is that the
driver first told police he was distracted by the phone, then later
claimed he wasn’t using it. That claim was disputed by witnesses and
electronic records.
But the important part, and I’ll repeat it, is that the driver
reportedly told police at one point that he believed the distraction of
the phone caused the accident.
Dave
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Dave wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
> > Dave wrote:
> > > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
> > > SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
> > > killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
> > > making a personal call on his cell phone.
> > How do they know the reason he was distracted was his cell phone?
> > It’s an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind
> > of illogic in all sorts of arguments:
> > All men wear ties -> Sally is wearing a tie -> Sally is a man
> > Obviously wrong.
> Left out of the article but on some televised reports is that the
> driver first told police he was distracted by the phone, then later
> claimed he wasn’t using it. That claim was disputed by witnesses and
> electronic records.
That certainly is an important part of the story that was left out.
Dave wrote:
> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
> SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
> killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
> making a personal call on his cell phone.
Though it probably wouldn’t have helped in this case, there’s a partial
solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the
cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911) calls
and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6 mph.
> Though it probably wouldn’t have helped in this case, there’s a partial
> solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the
> cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911) calls
> and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6 mph.
So if you are jogging, your cell phone doesn’t ring? -Dave
Arif Khokar wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
> > SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
> > killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
> > making a personal call on his cell phone.
> Though it probably wouldn’t have helped in this case, there’s a partial
> solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the
> cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911) calls
> and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6 mph.
The solution is to ticket drivers for shitty driving no matter the
cause. Let’s start putting the blame on the driver instead of the
inanimate object.
Larry Bud wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>>http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
>>SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
>>killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
>>making a personal call on his cell phone.
> How do they know the reason he was distracted was his cell phone?
> It’s an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind
> of illogic in all sorts of arguments:
If he was using is mobile phone, then he wasn’t paying full attention to
the task at hand. The task that he wasn’t properly paying attention to
was maneuvering a ~10 tonne piece of machinery full of people through a
urban environment. Pretty dangerous if you ask me. If I were ever on a
bus and the driver started making mobile phone calls, I’d get off.
> All men wear ties -> Sally is wearing a tie -> Sally is a man
> Obviously wrong.
Maybe, but not far off!
Dave C. wrote:
>>Though it probably wouldn’t have helped in this case, there’s a partial
>>solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the
>>cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911) calls
>>and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6 mph.
> So if you are jogging, your cell phone doesn’t ring?
Correct. I’m sure that most people can go for 30 minutes to an hour
without a phone call if needed. If they’re that desparate to use their
cell phone, then they can buy a treadmill.
Dave wrote:
> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
> SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
> killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
> making a personal call on his cell phone.
Why did the pedestrian step in front of a bus?
SQUISH!
On 21 Sep 2005 15:52:09 -0700, Larry Bud <larrybud2…@yahoo.com> said
the following in rec.autos.driving…
> The solution is to ticket drivers for shitty driving no matter the
> cause. Let’s start putting the blame on the driver instead of the
> inanimate object.
Sounds like the most rational idea I have heard here in quite a while.
–
Paul.
Self appointed unofficial overseer
of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving
On 21 Sep 2005 10:05:28 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2…@yahoo.com>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Dave wrote:
>> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
>> SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
>> killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
>> making a personal call on his cell phone.
>How do they know the reason he was distracted was his cell phone?
>It’s an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind
>of illogic in all sorts of arguments:
>All men wear ties -> Sally is wearing a tie -> Sally is a man
>Obviously wrong.
Well gee, maybe they found out that he was doing two things – talking
on the phone and driving.
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:55:58 GMT, laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
<xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks
>drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse.
>This monster should be convicted of manslaughter and locked up forever
Shit. I feel so dirty for agreeing with you. Except, I seem to
believe this should be tried as murder unless that is not possible.
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:23:20 GMT, "jaybird" <nos…@me.com> wrote:
>> It’s an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind
>> of illogic in all sorts of arguments:
>> All men wear ties -> Sally is wearing a tie -> Sally is a man
>> Obviously wrong.
>Sally’s tie isn’t distracting.
Don’t quit your day job, funny man.
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:18:18 -0500, DTJ <n…@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:55:58 GMT, laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
><xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks
>>drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse.
>>This monster should be convicted of manslaughter and locked up forever
>Shit. I feel so dirty for agreeing with you.
That’s ok. Shows i’m knocking some sense into that thick skull of
yours.
laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:18:18 -0500, DTJ <n…@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:55:58 GMT, laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> ><xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks
> >>drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse.
> >>This monster should be convicted of manslaughter and locked up forever
> >Shit. I feel so dirty for agreeing with you.
> That’s ok. Shows i’m knocking some sense into that thick skull of
> yours.
You are one of the few trolls who admits you’re a deadly criminal (41
in a school zone) then makes their rare good point.
This bus driver does belong in jail, and judging by the community
outrage probably will serve time. I’m on federal grand jury duty this
month, and if he came before me he’d be facing a trial for sure from
what I know of the incident.
Dave
Arif Khokar wrote:
> Dave C. wrote:
> >>Though it probably wouldn’t have helped in this case, there’s a partial
> >>solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the
> >>cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911) calls
> >>and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6 mph.
> > So if you are jogging, your cell phone doesn’t ring?
> Correct. I’m sure that most people can go for 30 minutes to an hour
> without a phone call if needed. If they’re that desparate to use their
> cell phone, then they can buy a treadmill.
What about passengers of cars, busses, trains, etc? As of now,
espescially in a car, there’s no problem whatsoever with a person
answering a phone or making a call.
Good intent, terrible idea. Try again.
Dave
Larry Bud wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
> > SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
> > killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
> > making a personal call on his cell phone.
> How do they know the reason he was distracted was his cell phone?
> It’s an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind
> of illogic in all sorts of arguments:
Au contraire. It’s actually very logical.
When driving in heavy traffic and negotiating say a complicated junction,
I’ll even ask passengers to be quiet. Conversations don’t allow proper
concentration on the driving.
Graham
DTJ wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:55:58 GMT, laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks
> >drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse.
> >This monster should be convicted of manslaughter and locked up forever
> Shit. I feel so dirty for agreeing with you. Except, I seem to
> believe this should be tried as murder unless that is not possible.
Doesn’t a murder charge require evidence of intent ?
This can only qualify as manslaughter.
Graham
"Dave" <davidpho…@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127370425.035939.281720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Arif Khokar wrote:
>> Dave C. wrote:
>> >>Though it probably wouldn’t have helped in this case, there’s a partial
>> >>solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the
>> >>cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911)
>> >>calls
>> >>and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6
>> >>mph.
>> > So if you are jogging, your cell phone doesn’t ring?
>> Correct. I’m sure that most people can go for 30 minutes to an hour
>> without a phone call if needed. If they’re that desparate to use their
>> cell phone, then they can buy a treadmill.
> What about passengers of cars, busses, trains, etc? As of now,
> espescially in a car, there’s no problem whatsoever with a person
> answering a phone or making a call.
> Good intent, terrible idea. Try again.
> Dave
Mr. Khokar does not seem to understand that the rationale for "mobile
phones" is that they be usable while moving.
I was the programs manager for network programs in a company that pioneered
packet-based technology for military, and later, civilian phones.
The fact that there are stupid users does not detract from the efficacy of
the technology.
I also have an Air Medal for commanding units while talking on four radios
while flying in a helicopter.
Maybe the average person should pull over to the side of the road to talk on
the phone.
This has nothing to do with the technology.
It has everything to do with the limitations of the person.
I’ve driven across the US more that twenty times, and have a GPS system,
hooked to a DeLorme mapping system on a laptop computer, and GMA cellphone,
and, when travelling with friends, VHF intervehicular communications.
And I also listened to the radio.
No problem.
The fact that there are stupid users has nothing to do with the technology.
Darwin’s Law seems to apply.
laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2005 09:00:14 -0700, "Dave" <davidpho…@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html
> >SAN DIEGO — Sheriff’s investigators say a bus driver who hit and
> >killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was
> >making a personal call on his cell phone.
People need to think about phones this way: When you are talking on
the damn thing, it creates a sort of mental cocoon around you, where
you
are just about shut off from everything around you. (if you ever
approached
someone who is talking on the phone, you’ve seen this effect in
action). This
is especialy true when using the handset, but happens with
speakerphones and
headsets too. Now, is it wise to drive a multi-ton machine that can
kill in
an instant even at low speeds while in this cocooned state?
BTW: Every day, I see drivers of large sedans and SUVs yakking on the
phone while driving around Downtown L.A. on streets that have heavy
foot traffic!
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> >The accident happened at the intersection of 9th Street and Imperial
> >Beach Boulevard last Tuesday. Eva Smart, 85, was within a few feet of
> >the curb in a crosswalk when a municipal bus rounded the corner and hit
> >her. Smart died in the hospital of multiple injuries.
> >Smart was walking home from an outing with her daughter when the
> >accident occurred. Family members left flowers at the curb where Smart
> >was killed, with a note reading, "Mama, we love you so very much."
> >Witnesses said the driver, Jesus Villaneuva, was talking on his cell
> >phone when the accident occurred. Villaneuva, 60, has worked for the
> >transit system for 12 years.
> >While it is not illegal to talk on cell phones while driving in
> >California, San Diego municipal bus drivers are prohibited from using
> >cell phones to make personal calls. Calls are only allowed in the case
> >of emergencies.
> >Officials say they are seeing more and more cases where cell phones
> >threaten public safety.
> >"You see your everyday driver driving with cell phones. Other drivers
> >and pedestrians need to be aware that they are not paying attention,"
> >said Franco Del Rosario, of the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. "We get
> >complaints about it all the time. Swerving in and out of traffic, not
> >stopping for stop signs."
> >Villaneuva’s case is being referred to the district attorney for
> >possible prosecution, NBC 7/39 reported. He has been placed on
> >administrative leave.
> Goddam – that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks
> drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse.
> This monster should be convicted of manslaughter and locked up forever
> but i bet he doesn’t do a day. We are a nation of criminal coddlers.