Wednesday, December 14, 2011

This is why I am a misanthrope.

Driving has gotten worse in my lifetime. People like to do stuff behind the wheel other than actually operate the motor vehicle, and in addition to the old standbys of coffee & donuts, applying makeup in the rearview, and futzing with the stereo, we've added GPS screens, cell phones, and now handheld internet access (and, given what most people do with one hand while they're on the internet and the fact that they have to hold the phone in the other hand, what are they using to turn the steering wheel?)

The answer to the problem, of course, would be to use common sense, but that has, apparently, gone the way of the common passenger pigeon. Instead, people are so afraid that they won't be able to do the right thing without some guy in shiny boots standing over them with a pair of handcuffs making sure that they do it, that they plead for yet another law, a law against cell phones:


The irony of this law being enforced by a guy carrying a pager, a cell phone, a two-way radio and playing Solitaire on the laptop bolted to his transmission tunnel while he keeps one eye on the readout of his radar gun is duly noted.
Tuesday's recommendation, if adopted by states, would outlaw non-emergency phone calls and texting by operators of every vehicle on the road.

It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices...
I would further note that using a hands-free cell phone is no more distracting than talking to an actual passenger, so when the 2019 Buicks from Government Motors come from the factory with ignition interlocks connected to ball gags, don't say I didn't warn you.

When are we going to just admit what's happened, and change the national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?"

*checks year on calendar* Thank Shiva, I'm over halfway done. I'm going to go smoke another cigarette and see if I can't speed things up a little.

71 comments:

Anonymous said...

What was it that was written in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress?

The law is for some one else but not for me?

Shootin' Buddy

The Jack said...

SB exactly what I was thinking; it's a law against *other* people using cell phones.
I'd betcha a nice sawbuck that at least half the people voting "Yes" fully intend to keep talking on their cell phones, secure in the knowledge that they've "made a difference". As I'm sure they're convinced that while they can talk without being a danger it's all those other idiots that need to be leashed.


And banning hands free cell use?
Sure. That's the "do godder" spite.
You mention smoking Tam, it's like banning outdoor smoker shelters for resturants and bars.

WV: Depso

Tam said...

Gratuitous Smuggery: We Ban Because We Can.

Marko said...

Where do they draw that particular line at enforcement? My cell phone is also a GPS, and the wife's new car streams Bluetooth to the car's audio system--both phone calls and music. If I use the iPhone's GPS while listening to an audiobook, am I violating that shiny new law?

Once again legislature is being proposed to fight the misuse of technology from a decade or two ago. At least they're not trying to fight non-existent tech again, like with the Glock 7.

TJIC said...

> The irony of this law being enforced by a guy carrying a pager, a cell phone, a two-way radio and playing Solitaire on the laptop bolted to his transmission tunnel while he keeps one eye on the readout of his radar gun is duly noted.

Cops are smarter than us, and more skilled, and experts with pistols.

That's why Thugs in B ^H^H^H^H Our Betters are given rights ^H^H privileges that serfs don't get.

.45ACP+P said...

A much better question would have been "Would you personally abide by the ban?" I doubt that the numbers would reflect the same percentage. It is always the "other guy" who must be controlled; it is never "me". I am noticing an ever increasing attitude that a "stupid" law should just be ignored. Any law restricts freedom. How much freedom we are willing to give up will always be the final question. My hope is we wake up as a free people tomorrow, as we were today. I know we were a more free people yesterday than we are today.

Tango Juliet said...

There's no better time for me to engage in endless conference calls than when I'm on the road.

It's really no different than buzzing down the road and listening to polka music or talk radio IMHO.

Tango Juliet said...

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all. – Jacob Hornberger (1995)

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

Pakkinpoppa said...

In Ohioland, the rumor is if you so much as look at your cellphone (at least in my town, the state ban hasn't passed from what I understand) you are "using" your cellphone. Seeing as my phone also serves as my clock I guess checking the time would make me violate the law. Same with even looking to dial the phone, but apparently using it while not looking at it is okay. Maybe.

The most scared I've ever been was watching a Beemer SUV driver all over 71 North, in her lane, the berm sleep strip, fast, slow, fast, swerve....
I poured on the coal in the old 4 Runner (it was old...had issues, so I didn't like pushing it too fast) and flew by, she was...
eating a salad. One hand holding bowl, one hand with fork, head looking down at salad, must not have even been using the cruise control...

Firehand said...

I've said "Ok, you want to do something? We have both careless and reckless driving laws on the books NOW, so use THOSE!"

The response tends to be "Those aren't good enough, we need a law SPECIFICALLY targeting this awful problem!"

I'm convinced most of the clowns pushing this just have a driving need to attach their name to some "I'm doing good" measure, whether it works or not.

Stephen said...

That ball gag line....I wish I had written that.

Chas Clifton said...

"I would further note that using a hands-free cell phone is no more distracting than talking to an actual passenger..."

Here is one difference: if you are chatting with a passenger and you suddenly enter congestion, a work zone, accident scene, flock of emus, whatever, that passenger sees the situation too. They can pause the conversation until the problem is over.

The person on the other end of the cell phone conversation keeps talking, thus splitting your mental focus -- or forcing you to shout, "Emus! I can't talk now!"

The problem of how to legislate common sense persists, however.

og said...

Nope. nothing to see here. No government entity would ever push an agenda to distract people from more important issues.

Let me go on record here as saying, everything the FedGov has jammed their fat fingers in since, oh, about 1945,(or maybe earlier) pisses me off to no end, and I pray that when they install me in my socket in hell, I will be just far enough below the fed.gov layer that I can throw flaming sea urchins at their nutsacks for all eternity.

Misanthrope? Maybe. Misanthropy refers to "humans" or "human nature" I find it difficult to attach the term "human" to most of these cretins.

MandaFern said...

The next thing to be banned might as well be manual transmissions. One needs a hand to shift gears.

NYEMT said...

"...I would further note that using a hands-free cell phone is no more distracting than talking to an actual passenger.."

Have to disagree with you there. I've noticed that when I talk on a phone, I subconsciously inject an image of the person to whom I'm talking, which directs a portion of my attention away from whatever I'm doing. Having the person actually present as we're talking apparently relieves my brain of that necessity. That may not be true for everyone (everyone's brain is wired a bit differently), but since noticing it, I try to be selective about when and where I talk on the phone when I'm driving.

That said, further legislation on the matter (and particularly from a FedGov level) is ridiculous. And enforcement is likely to be as capricious and un-evenhanded as that of any other vehicular law.

Art said...

I smell ticket revenue!

Nathan said...

The states need to stand up to Big Bully FedGov and say, "Nope. Ain't happening."

Not that they will. Cowards.

Frank W. James said...

If they are using this kind of logic for responsible driving, then banning drive-up windows at all fast food establishments nationwide can't be far behind.

Oh How I Love the Nanny State. NOT!!!...

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Bubblehead Les. said...

So does this new recommendation apply to the Gooberment Motors OnStar System, or will the Administration grant THEM a "Waiver" if this stupidity become Law?

cj said...

"...I would further note that using a hands-free cell phone is no more distracting than talking to an actual passenger.."

Also have to disagree, having met and talked with people who have done such research. Hands-free is still significantly (from a statistical point of view) more distracting than having a passenger in the car. The last theory they had was that passengers could better react to situations in the car, so they might shut up during a complex merge just before a red light, for example.

Tam said...

cj,

On the other hand, I've never had a cell phone run a hand up my skirt while I was trying to pay attention to the road... :p

stuart said...

Tam
It's already illegal here in UK, people are still doing it even though there are several cases of people being killed by someone texting on their phone and not looking where they are going.

Tam said...

stuart,

No, you've had cases of people being killed by other people driving recklessly.

Whether that recklessness was expressed by getting behind the wheel while texting, drunk, or teenaged doesn't make much difference at the funeral.

Also, re-read the article: It's not about texting...

Anonymous said...

"MandaFern said...

The next thing to be banned might as well be manual transmissions. One needs a hand to shift gears."


Don't need to. They are being phased out by the manufacturers. Have you tried to purchase a vehicle that has manual tranny these days?

It's getting hard. Try to buy a minivan ...a mid-range sedan...

Than being said, I've used a cell phone, eaten coffee and doughnuts etc.. while driving. Done correctly under the correct conditions, it's not a disaster waiting to happen.

They don't actually need new laws for this, doesn't the police have some catch-all like "Operating a motor vehicle unsafely". Who gives a rat's arse why: texting, applying makeup, salad eating, playing video game, "reading" playboy...

If you can do the above and not swerve all over the road, great.

I'm sure there are F1 drivers in normal traffic who are so damn bored they can juggle chainsaws while steering with their knees driving backwards quite safely.

Tam said...

"They don't actually need new laws for this, doesn't the police have some catch-all like "Operating a motor vehicle unsafely". Who gives a rat's arse why: texting, applying makeup, salad eating, playing video game, "reading" playboy...

If you can do the above and not swerve all over the road, great.
"

Quoted For Truth.

Anonymous said...

"The irony of this law being enforced by a guy carrying a pager, a cell phone, a two-way radio and playing Solitaire on the laptop bolted to his transmission tunnel while he keeps one eye on the readout of his radar gun is duly noted."

The IMPD is so talented, they can do all that under the influence!

T.A.

Chris said...

I should have known better after the ball gag line, followed so closely by the national motto comment. But, nooooo. I kept drinking my tea until I read your comment about what a cell phone has never done to distract you. Company laptop, too. Damn.

Goober said...

This is such an easy thing to solve. There are laws on the books already regarding distracted driving.

Again, this entire argument is an effort to cater tot he lowest common denominator - the person who cannot talk on a phone and drive at the same time without being unsafe - while punishing those who do not fit that bill (those of us, me included, who have been talking on the phone while driving for 16 years now and haven't had a problem one with it and can't see why it distracts you more than talking with someone in the car with you.).

Just like closing down a wilderness area because billy bob likes to dump his garbage there, thereby punishing everyone else who DIDN't dump their garbage there, this law needs to focus on it's INTENT rather than the way that it is going to be handled. In other words, if someone is driving unsafely because they are distracted while driving, then nail their asses. If someone is doing things other than driving but it isn't detracting from their driving ability, then leave them the hell alone.

I got shided by an officer the other day who "cut me a break" and didn't ticket me. He pulled me over while talking on his cell phone, keying the non-hands free mic on his radio, and typing my license plate number into the laptop all at the same time, and then had the temerity to accuse me of driving distracted. He even admitted that it didn't appear that I was having trouble doing the two things at once, but he told me (correctly) that it doesn't matter - it is still illegal.

RobertSlaughter said...

Tam says "Instead, people are so afraid that someone else won't be able to do the right thing without some guy in shiny boots standing over that person with a pair of handcuffs making sure that that person does it, that they plead for yet another law, a law against cell phones"

Fixed that for you. ;)

Anonymous said...

Like all of the other traffic laws I've ever broken and not been caught at; catch me if you can.

Matt
St Paul

jetfxr69 said...

I'm with Chris. Was just fine reading, thinking, absorbing.

Then you knocked my train completely off the track with the skirt thing.

*WAIT* Tam owns a skirt? Who knew?

Justthisguy said...

Yes, the badge-bearers around here do seem to have trouble staying in the lane. You've seen those "Hang up and drive!" bumper stickers? I would like to see one which said, "Hey! Deppity! Log off and drive!"

Justthisguy said...

Actually, jet, a skirt can be a good "tactical" garment. I used to know a gal (a bit of an hippy, to be sure) who wore a long skirt most of the time, and "regimental" to boot. She said it was quite convenient when she was out in the yard and wanted to pee. She could just pretend to be examining a little flower, or something. She also believed in keeping the "parts" well-ventilated, for health reasons.

Justthisguy said...

Here comes a first stone, right from my glass house.

Never having been a cowboy, I never learned to roll a cigarette one-handed.

I have been known to roll a ciggy while steering with my knees.

Only on the open road, with no other traffic visible! Honest!

Able said...

As Stuart said, it's been law here in the PRUK for years (without the hands free clause, thankfully) and it is consistently and comprehensively ignored. But, here's the thing, the road deaths have been falling for decades. So of course it has to be because of the law, doesn't it? Then as Art said, it's a big earner for the authorities.

Er, CJ just what kind of passengers do you get in your car? Mine tend to be loud, argumentative, sing out of tune and constantly point out the 'fit' guy on the corner - and that's just my mum.

Think kids, pets, music,... If you can't have a simple conversation whilst driving, you shouldn't be driving at all.

'The law is for some one else but not for me' thing is so true, I brought up gun ownership in a conversation recently (amazingly no one collapsed or screamed). Every one of the eleven people there agreed that THEY would be trustworthy with a weapon, not one would trust anyone else with one!!!!

I now need a lie down after the hot flush caused by Tams comment, at least after washing my mind out with soap thanks to Justthisguy

Will said...

Back about 10 yrs ago, the motorcycle rags were pointing out that approx 1600 traffic fatalities/yr in the US were attributed to talking on cell phones.

While patrolling the Silicon Valley freeways during commute hours, in the early 00's, I estimated that 40% of drivers had a phone to their ear.

It was obvious that their situational awareness was poor. I gathered this from observing them drive into/over debris that was big enough to cause vehicle damage. The funniest was the guy in a pickup, running by himself, who didn't see the 20+ft double ladder laying across his lane. He missed noticing the group ahead of him who successfully dodged it with much violent swerving, and crossed it dead center. The look on his face, as his truck launched a few inches off the road, was priceless. If he hadn't hit it, I could have cleared it off the road in one piece before the following group arrived, as I was standing on the shoulder, with my vehicle lit up like a christmas tree.

Sometimes, their vehicle acted like there was a drunk behind the wheel. I learned to get a close visual of the driver to verify the absence of a phone, before classifying them as DUI. BTW, not uncommon to find them at 6am, or any other time of day, not just at nighttime.

One of the common things I encountered, after an accident, was the people who couldn't find their phone. Amazing where it could end up, after bouncing around inside (usually). I would try to ring it to help them locate it. (The battery wasn't always mounted at this point, though.) Only one driver ever admitted to being on the phone when they crashed (solo spin-out into a ditch/soundwall).

What would be better than this law, would be to have the police automatically do a phone records search as part of an investigation into any collision resulting in injury or fatality. Still not a perfect response to the situation, but I doubt there is one.

The fact is, some people are really good at driving while on a cell, and others really suck at it, and most are somewhere in the bell curve between the extremes.

wv: clings. Yep, we people do cling to our handheld objects...

Robin said...

There are some decent studies that suggest that using a cellphone is more dangerous than driving alcohol impaired and may cause more injuries/fatalities.

And indeed, as observed above, a cellphone conversation appears to be more distracting than a passenger ... at least a passenger who keeps his hands to himself...

TheSev said...

To coin a phrase, Already Tickered.

http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=199098

Justthisguy said...

Hand up skirt? Hell, I had the (now-and-then) Sweety on the back of my old Yamaha DS-7 nearly kill us both by reaching around and sticking her hand down the front of my pants, back in 1970-something. Yes, we've known each other that long.

Anonymous said...

Think I will have another drink and go drive! OMG, I may blow over .08. Of course the asshat in the car in front of me is driving 20MPH under the limit and weaving all over the road With a cell phone in his or her ear! No problem Sir, you have been drinking. BS squared!

Justthisguy said...

NYEMT, I see that you are one of those people who can't converse without that creepy "eye contact", or imagining that you have it. My Dad used to drive both me and my Mom nuts by looking at us to talk to us (thereby risking all our lives) when driving.

Sigh! Neurotypicals: Can't live with 'em; can't get away from 'em.

Tam said...

I really wish that anyone using the bogus, made-up word "neurotypical" would die screaming in a crotch fire.

Robert said...

...It's what you get when you are ruled by professional politicians.

Don said...

Will beat me to it. If you've been on your phone when an incident occurs, your fault period. Oh, if you both were, equal fault to each. The police should be able to get a warrant to check pretty easily.

Jayson said...

Ever since Big Daddy decided that all children must be in the backseat, I've noticed a good number of weaving, dumbass drivers are women turning around to yell at their kid, take something out of its hand, etc.

The obvious solution is to ban children under the age of 16 from being in cars.

You know...for the children.

the pawnbroker said...

"...given what most people do with one hand while they're on the internet..."

Then...just about everybody right here right now is, um...

And all this time I thought the "circle jerk" thing was just a metaphor.

Justthisguy said...

Tam, that's pretty rude. It may be made-up, like a lot of terms of art, but it ain't bogus. All it means is that normal people are, well, normal. Some of us ain't so normal. Some of us may believe that our abnormality owes more to nature than nurture, that's all.

Our acquaintance Gewehr98 might, if pressed, admit to being neurally divergent. I believe he was instrumental in getting the AF to admit that ADHD does indeed exist, and that he has it, and that he controlled it well enough to continue his career and retire honorably.

Borepatch said...

so when the 2019 Buicks from Government Motors come from the factory with ignition interlocks connected to ball gags, don't say I didn't warn you

Wonder if something this kinky will play in Peoria?

OMG! Vote Mitt!

Anonymous said...

@Don and Will:

Let's just dispense with quaint notions like "warrants", along with the naive belief that our electronic slave devices are called that because they are ours, rather than vice versa.

As our phones, cars, computers, and even our virtual libraries meld with biological and physiological identifiers to track and store the who, what, how, and where of our lives, any expectation of privacy from intrusion - gov or otherwise - is increasingly delusional.

Mycroft said...

Considering the cell phone ban and the proposal to ban all smoking in Indy (I've never been a smoker) because of "safety", I think they should just cut to the chase and ban freedom.
Freedom can never be safe, so I guess it's got to go.
Too bad, I've always enjoyed it.

Jeff said...

NV passed more bad law this last year making it illegal to text while driving.
Its not really stopped that so much as made people try to text in their laps while driving now instead of texting in front of their face while driving.

Chris said...

As has been noted more than once here, this problem does not have a simple, elegant solution, like many problems that have to take into account the varying skill levels (at different times and under different conditions)of millions of drivers. However, no politician can long resist taking a stab at coming up with such a solution, if only to be able to say he/she is "doing something". We would probably be better off if we doubled their salaries on the condition that they do not pass any new legislation.

Library-Gryffon said...

I don't have to look at the person I'm talking to, so hands free isn't an issue. I've noticed that I actually pay more attention to the road when I'm on the phone than otherwise, perhaps because I realize that I'm doing something that might be distracting, so I consciously work to counteract that. On the other hand, having two kids start a screaming match in the back seat is guaranteed to distract me, at least until I can pull to the side of the road and .. discuss .. things with them.

As Jayson says, I guess they'll just have to ban children from cars now too.

Will said...

Tam,
as far as the term, NT, being bogus, a quick goggle search shows that the scientific community is using it. It is merely a descriptive handle for the majority of humans.

BTW, it may be that being left-handed would qualify as removing someone from that category. Percentage-wise alone it would, since it is based on a different brain organization from the majority of humans.

At the moment, it is normally used only to refer to someone who is not on the autistic spectrum. That narrow, reverse or negative, definition may change in the future as the term becomes more common. And as the autistic spectrum is studied more.

There is speculation that there may be some sort of connection or link between left-handedness and the autism spectrum. High percentage of the non-NT are left-handed.

Will said...

Tam, just found this:

funny explanation

http://asperger.tribe.net/thread/8725f112-ca77-4a8a-be19-38fb08728089

Tam said...

Will,

Any club that would have me as a member should die in a horrible crotch fire. ;)

Nylarthotep said...

Misanthrope? I don't know. I'm told regularly that I'm a misanthrope and I have to point out that I don't hate humanity, I just hate everyone involved.

Justthisguy said...

My BAPishness and introversion are most likly innate, but I assure all of y'all that my misanthropy is an acquired characteristic. I tend to want to like people, but I keep getting disappointed.

You know what they say about the cat who, once burned, avoids the stove even when it is cold.

WV: oughth. Yah, I oughth to try harder not to be such a grump.

Justthisguy said...

All hail LeeAnn, the Cheese Mistress, who coined that most excellent phrase, "die in a crotch fire."

WV: worout. Yep, I think this comment thread is just about worout.

SewerDweller said...

Speaking as a motorcyclist, Your freedom to be an idiot in a car does not trump my right to not get run over because you're not paying attention. I can dodge cage drivers -most- of the time, but there are certain situations where I -cant-. I've had car drivers push me into oncoming traffic by merging on top of me, despite me screaming,swearing, laying on the horn, and -beating on the side of the car with a 30" steel ASP Baton-. I -wish- I was joking.

Tam said...

Sewerdweller,

Don't whine to me about cagers: I commuted a hundred miles a day in Atlanta traffic for years, first on a GPz 550 and later on a Suzuki RF 600. I still have a steel rod in my right shin as a souvenir. I bicycle around Broad Ripple all the time.

This is still a stupid law.

SewerDweller said...

Tam-

I find the phrase 'there out to be a law' to be one of the most disgusting phrases in the human language. That being said...

We have a very large segment of the population engaging in an activity that's dangerous, and stupid. And by 'stupid' I mean there's no phone call that's worth your life, or, more importantly to me, there's no phone call of yours that's worth -my- life.

I've not been run over yet, because I'm an incredibly paranoid rider. I watch not only the cars, but the people -inside- the cars. And the number of people texting down the freeway is, frankly, almost enough to make me hang up my helmet.

The way the laws are currently written there are no legal deterrent or legal consequences to driving distracted, that I am aware of. I dont know -why- it is, but most folks out there these days, really do seem to need some guy with a badge to tell them what not to do.

And, as the laws are currently written, there's nothing I am allowed to do to protect myself, other than try to dodge.

Why is thier right to be a dangerous asshole greater than my right to not get run over by a distracted driver?

I really do think this is a serious problem. I understand that you feel this is bad law, and you're quite possible correct. How would you resolve it, if you were Queen?

P.S. Sorry to hear about the rod, my ol lady's getting one put in her shoulder today.

P.P.S. Had a GT550 for a while. stupid fun bikes.

Robert said...

If beating on the side of the car doesn't interrupt the merging action, perhaps they DO see you and are going to move into your space no matter what. I speak from exciting personal experience as a former motorcycle commuter.

Robert said...

P.S.: Yamaha RD-400D With a red tank, thank you, not blue or yellow. Shipped to the states directly from Japan on an aircraft carrier. Your tax dollars at work, folks.

SewerDweller said...

Robert - no, he was busy texting on his smartphone. He didn't look up till I started hitting him hard enough to leave dents.

then he swerved all over the road with this look on his face of 'where the hell did -you- come from?!'

We pulled to a stop, and I explained that not only had he damaged my bike, he'd almost killed me. He responded with that whiney 'I'm saying sorry but I'm really not' tone of voice. I may have made intemperate remarks after that.

Robert said...

No one ever stopped to talk to me, perhaps because of the "intemperate gesture" or two that I may have inadvertantly done. I believe one miscreant did get arrested trying to take out yet another biker because there were witnesses that time. Glad you stayed safe.

Justthisguy said...

Robert, my RD400 had a blue tank. Rinngg, d-d- ding ding ding! Two-strokes forever!

Robert said...

Justthisguy: Blue and yellow were available in the states. The red ones were sold in Japan; in retrospect, it probably didn't meet EPA standards or something but that didn't occur to me back then. I sure did like that bike... Um, weren't we 'sposed to be bitching about government intrusion or unsafe drivers? Nah, bike nostalgia is more fun.

Will said...

SewerDweller:

It just occurred to me that at some point cagers seemed to stop trying to merge into me. This may have been when I gravitated to a more race oriented type of bike. Ones with built motors and louder pipes. No, they won't hear you coming down the road, but they sure do when that exhaust is right next to their windows.
I was always a little embarrassed by how loud some of those bikes were near idle, and tried to tiptoe around town, but even then they would set off some car alarms. They were loud, because twins and triples weren't making power if they weren't making sound.

After that, other than bad drivers and road conditions, I only had to worry about the deliberate attempts to kill me, and those tended to be a bit obvious.

Wish I was still capable of riding, sigh...

Justthisguy said...

Will, I used to ride a two-stroke to the Atlanta Friends Meeting. When I was tardy, I'd speed up about a quarter-mile away, then switch it off, pull the clutch, and coast the rest of the way. Good times.

NYEMT said...

In the interest of nullifying the "neurotypical" crack (hah - even SpellCheck knows it's not a word - and I NEVER agree with SpellCheck), I rode a bike with drag pipes for seven years. I felt guilty about leaving for work at 11PM every night, since the windows rattled along the block, even at idle...but it sure kept the traffic away from me on the road. :)

And in the two-stroke vein, I currently have a partially-restored Suzuki GT-550 in the garage, waiting for the return of warmer weather and ambition. Not necessarily in that order.