I agree hands free should be illegal too. I've tried bluetooth and it is the conversation that takes you away from the wheel not the actual phone.<br><br>I was on the Jamaicaway yesterday. Yes, the same road but the Hutch is prettier too. I drove it late at night once a week back in the seventies and could not believe the mayhem out there. It hasn't changed much except the trees are a bit bigger.<br><br><br>

That also speaks to age "windows". I have long been a proponent of mandatory, incrementally increased testing based on a stepped age criteria. In MA, a license is good for 6 years. In NY it's 8, and I think 4 in Florida. But at a certain age, I believe licenses should have a closer expiration date. Hypothetically, starting at 65, the term might decrease to 4 years. At 69, to 2 years. And annually from age 71 on. Perhaps at age 86 — and this is a tough one — the license should be non-renewable. Don't know which would put the bigger burden on the state and local gov'ts — providing transportation for the non-driving elderly, or cleaning up the carnage they sometimes cause.<br><br>

I believe in the UK retirement age requires retesting - including medical signoff. But that still doesn't eliminate the 20something blonde in the Ford Excursion who hasn't got a clue what's happening 5' from where she's sitting!!!<br><br><br>- This is gonna get pretty interesting. <br>- Define "interesting". <br>- Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die..

Eliminating the 20-something blonde would be the job of the 90-something old poop who just forgot which foot pedal is for go and which is for stop!<br><br>

When I was attending MassArt in the late '60s-early '70's, I drove the Jamaica Way every day. On days when I worked very late at the school, I would relax with a joint or two before heading home. Magically, that twisting road was laser straight and silky smooth. And my VW Squareback was a nuclear pulse drive spaceship. That I am alive today is no small miracle. <br><br>

<center><br><br><br><br><br><br></center><br><br><br>

<br><br>[color:white]. . . . . . . . . .</font color=white><br><br><br>I emphatically agree with what Poli & DJ Said:<br>Living in fear is simply no way to live.<br><br>I.T.M.C.<br>I'll Take My Chances.<br><br><br><br><br><br> <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Are you suggesting that a would be terrorist is going to carry acetone and bleach and whatever other equipment is needed and make a bomb on the plane that is flying from WV to SC?<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, you're suggesting I'm suggesting it. The two posts you decided to aren't related at all. Bleach and hair bleach are two entirely different chemicals.<br><br>What I'm suggesting is when an explosives sniffing dog is alerted, you damn well better detain the person. Checking for explosives isn't anything new, it's been done for decades - albeit on a more spotty basis. 99 times out of 100 it will be something innocent. Perhaps you can write the victims families of that 1 time explaining that they died because you didn't want to be inconvenienced. I'm sure that would make them feel better.<br><br>Suppose that woman did have bleach in one of those containers? Someone else on board has ammonia. Depending on the mix you'd end up with a plane full of chlorine gas. More ammonia than bleach and it could react to form hydrazine and catch the plane on fire, or more bleach than ammonia and it could react to form nitrogen trichloride which, yes is an incredibly unstable explosive. That's why an explosives dog will flag bleach. None of these potential reactions even need the person to leave their seat. All they need to do is dump the stuff on the floor together and you've killed a plane full of people, or damn near the whole plane. Hardly rocket science, and hardly a sophisticated feat.<br><br>What I suggest has nothing to do with living in fear. Let's get this out in the open: I will never die in a terrorist attack. But that doesn't mean I think we should be cavalier with safety. After all, I've never cut myself using xacto knives at work, nor do I think I ever will, but does that mean I shouldn't use the supplied safety gloves?<br><br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What I'm suggesting is when an explosives sniffing dog is alerted, you <br>damn well better detain the person. Checking for explosives isn't anything <br>new, it's been done for decades - albeit on a more spotty basis. 99 times out <br>of 100 it will be something innocent. Perhaps you can write the victims <br>families of that 1 time explaining that they died because you didn't want to <br>be inconvenienced. I'm sure that would make them feel better.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Bleach isn't an explosive.<br><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Suppose that woman did have bleach in one of those containers? <br>Someone else on board has ammonia. Depending on the mix you'd end up <br>with a plane full of chlorine gas.<p><hr></blockquote><p>You don't need explosive sniffing dogs to smell amonia or bleach filled bottles.<br>Heck, I could smell amonia if a water bottle was filled with it. By the way,<br>How much of this stuff has to carried on to fill a plane with chlorine gas?<br><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>More ammonia than bleach and it could react to form hydrazine<p><hr></blockquote><p>[color:blue]Hydrazine is produced in the Olin Raschig process from sodium hypochlorite and ammonia</font color=blue><br><br>[color:blue]The Olin Raschig process is an industrial process used to produce <br>hydrazine. Sodium hypochlorite solution is mixed with ammonia at 5 °C to <br>form chloramine and sodium hydroxide, which is then rapidly added to <br>anhydrous ammonia under pressure and heated to 130 °C to generate <br>hydrazine</font color=blue><br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olin_Raschig_process<br><br>So you're suggesting a terrorist is going to make hydrazine by the process <br>above. Hardly something you could do in a airplane toilet.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> more bleach than ammonia and it could react to form nitrogen <br>trichloride which, yes is an incredibly unstable explosive.<p><hr></blockquote><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloramine<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochloramine<br><br>[color:blue]Purified nitrogen trichloride explodes on contact with organic <br>compounds or catalytic surfaces....<br><br>Nitrogen trichloride may be formed in small amounts when public water <br>supplies are disinfected with monochloramine, a combination of chlorine and <br>ammonia.<br><br>NH2Cl is a highly unstable compound in concentrated form, much less as a <br>pure liquid. Few people have "seen" pure NH2Cl. Pure NH2Cl decomposes <br>violently above -40 °C.</font color=blue><br><br>So to make nitrogen trichloride you have to make monochloramine which<br>can't be made unless it's dilluted. And then you have to somehow purify<br>this on an airplane?<br><br>--------------------------------------<br><br>I think you're ignoring basic science with the idea that an explosive could<br>be made on a plane with household bleach and amonia.<br><br>If chlorine gas was the purpose, it would be easy to spot jugs of amonia<br>and bleach being brought on the plane. I could easily smell amonia or <br>household bleach when bottles are filled with that quatity.<br><br>But instead we have these fantasy terrorists plots where dog's have to sniff<br>trace amounts of bleach to stop the evil terrorists from blowing up a plane.<br><br>Don't wash your white shirt in bleach before you board a plane.<br><br><br><br>[color:red]Allez Cuisine! Bang a gong, it is on</font color=red>

You can post all the chemistry 101 you can find. It still doesn't change either side of the original argument in this thread. The issue comes down to caution vs. bravado (U.S. of Girly Men makes your position pretty clear). And somewhere along the line, "caution" has been equated to "fear". Can we cram enough hyperbole into this thread? <br><br>If people choose to become fearful because of a cautionary warning, that's their personal hangup. But you can't label the whole population with that tag just because bravado is you personal preference.<br><br>If the Creature with Two Heads wants to exploit the caution-fear syndrome for their political agenda, then bad on them. But you still can't just smirk at potential risk as it they're not even there. <br><br>Say you've had a run-in with someone in the past and they threatened you. You go out to your car one morning and there on the ground under the engine are some wire clippings and a few pieces of duck tape. That could have blown in from anywhere. It's just trash. But are you just gonna jump in and start 'er up, or are you gonna take a closer look before you put the key in the ignition?<br><br>NOBODY SAYS ANYBODY HAS TO LIVE IN FEAR! We're talking about being vigilant and careful. Why is that so objectionable?<br><br>