I think "being in control" means more than just "not having an accident". Surely it implies an inability to respond properly to any developing situation that might require action, even if you are lucky and nothing did happen to require any control.
I could drive for miles on a straight road with the cruise control on and my feet on the dashboard and probably not hit anything, but i don't think I could argue that therefore I was "in control".
In this particular case the sentence sounds about right. But I don't like the way all cases of eating at the wheel get tarred with the same brush. Eating an apple with one hand is not quite the same as eating crisps with two hands. And I can't see what is wrong with snatching a bite from a sandwich while waiting at traffic lights.
As others have said before, there are lots of acceptable one-handed operations performed while moving - changing gear, tuning the radio, smoking, for example.
|
As others have said before, there are lots of acceptable one-handed operations performed while moving - changing gear, tuning the radio, smoking, for example.
I find it difficult to understand why smoking whilst driving is acceptable. It is a fire risk, after all.
|
|
|
|
noooooo thats no problem. The Ammo ship half sunk in the thames estuary - now thats a problem!
>>
Just imagine, if the Tricolor had hit that - raining Mercs and Beemers!
|
I don't understand. The pedant in me says:
How can one be nicked for 'not being in control' unless this lack of control has been proven (e.g. by a resulting accident?).
In the case of mobile phones, it's clear: using a hand-held mobile while driving is in itself a nickable offence.
Oz (as was)
|
|
I see what you are getting at but is not an element of'being in control'the ability to respond quickly to an eventuality,like hitting a pothole,in which case he would not have had a grip on the wheel.
|
re discussionnot being in control >>
the laws of england and wales (and maybe scotland and northern ireland too) are drafted as far as possible to be "general" in nature, rather than detail every specific instance of unlawful conduct.
so, for example, say you are smoking and are seen by plod to be "wandering" from a normal course on the road; then you could very well be prosecuted for not being in control.
the reason why a specific law against mobile phones was brought in was debated and explained quite clearly at the time, so i won't go into it all over again.
|
|
I see my reference to 'the bullet in the head' treatment didn't go down very well again.
|
"I don't understand. The pedant in me says:
How can one be nicked for 'not being in control' unless this lack of control has been proven (e.g. by a resulting accident?)."
So if a bloke steering an oil tanker through a crowded shipping lane just ties the wheel and nips below to make a cup of coffee, he is still "in control", as long as the ship doesn't actually hit anything?
|
Apparently one can drive at a controlled speed, indicate and execute proper lane changes, maintain position in their lane, be observant of traffic around, respond to changing traffic conditions and have an accident or incident free journey and still be charged and convicted of not being in control of their vehicle.
Hard to get your head around isn't it?, well it is for me.
|
Agree totally trancer, that is precisely the point I was making.
Oz (as was)
|
Hard to get your head around isn't it?, well it is for me.
>>
i presume that you passed a uk driving test and had to study the highway code for that.
in the highway code, section 134, you will find that it says:
"136: Once moving you should
keep both hands on the wheel, where possible. This will help you to remain in full control of the vehicle at all times "
so you may use your hands for changing gear, releasing/applying handbrake, signalling, etc. as long as those actions are momentarily needed for the act of driving your car safely.
to make it clearer to those who keep asking about use of radios, or smoking, etc. - the rule means that if a police officer judges that you were not in full control, you may be held to account for that. you can argue your case in court later if you wish.
you amy be the best stunt driver in the world and able to safely drive the car safely using one foot on the gas and one foot on the steering wheel and your hands ties behind your back; - but you would be breaking the uk driving standards laws.
|
"i presume that you passed a uk driving test and had to study the highway code for that."
Yes, and No, wouldn't even know where to find a "highway code".
""136: Once moving you should
keep both hands on the wheel, where possible. This will HELP you to remain in full control of the vehicle at all times ""
Thanks for that quote, proves my point perfectly. Two hands on the wheel will *help* you remain in control, but by no means are a necessary requirement (going by the quote provided)for full control of the vehicle. That somehow gets misinterpreted to mean that one cannot be in full control if they don't have both (or even one) hand on the wheel.
If someone is unable to control their car, then they should be charged or removed from the streets, plain and simple. What we have here is the suggestion that there is only one way to be in control of a car and that I do not agree with.
Yes, yes, yes I know what the Police, the Courts and the Queen consider being in control and no I don't think I would have even a remote chance of winning a case if I took it to court, but just because they say I am "guilty" doesn't mean that I have to accept that I am.
Unless of course innocent people are never charged or convicted of offences or crimes in the UK.
|
Thanks for that quote, proves my point perfectly. Two hands on the wheel will *help* you remain in control, but by no means are a necessary requirement
>>
pardon me, trancer, but perhaps what we have here is a misunderstanding of the queen's english.
difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" is what i mean.
having your hands on the wheels helps, is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient to be fully in control. there are other aspects of the highway code which will tell you what is required. perhaps it is time you vistied a "good bookshop" in the high street and bought yurself a copy of the highway code. [it costs only a couple of quid, but it is also published in full on the internet ! :: ;-) :: ]
|
Well the quote provided above only mentioned that two hands helps maintain control...you added the necessary bit just now. Of course I am only referring to the posts here, until I find/read the highway code I have no idea if that also states that it is necessary to have two hands on the wheel.
"in the uk, people charged are always innocent - that is until they are proven guilty !!"
But are innocent people also found guilty?. Innocent here meaning, someone who did not commit an offense, yet was declared guilty anyway. If that does not happen in the UK then I have to say I am truly amazed.
I guess I really need to learn the Queen's English as I didn't think I would have failed so miserably in communicating that. 8-)
|
Unless of course innocent people are never charged or convicted of offences or crimes in the UK.
>>
in the uk, people charged are always innocent - that is until they are proven guilty !!
|
Apparently one can drive at a controlled speed, indicate and execute proper lane changes, maintain position in their lane, be observant of traffic around, respond to changing traffic conditions and have an accident or incident free journey and still be charged and convicted of not being in control of their vehicle. Hard to get your head around isn't it?, well it is for me.
It's not really that hard
The vehicle is designed to be controlled using two hands and both feet. It may be possible to do all the things trancer quotes with one hand or none using forearms knees or whatever. But you are not in full control of the vehicle as you may be unable to deal with the unexpected. Opinion of a Copper enough to start proceedings, no need to wait for bent metal or mangled bodies
|
"But you are not in full control of the vehicle as you may be unable to deal with the unexpected."
The lack of control would exist only *if* an unexpected situation arose. Beforehand the car would be in control. By your definition, police proceedings would start based on what they thought might happen.
They might start charging people with theft if they look at an item in a shop for too long..."Well you look like you might steal that, and you certainly have the ability to commit the crime so no need to wait for you to actually leave the shop without paying" 8-)
|
They might start charging people with
>>
trancer, here is another piece of english motoring law that you may find trouble getting to grips with:
section 22, road traffic act 1988; causing danger to road users;
"A person who, intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause, causes anything to be on or over a road, in such circumstances that it would be obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous, is guilty of an offence.
7 Years Prison And Unlimited Fine, On Summary Trial 6 MTh's And Statutory Max. Fine.
|
|
|
I see my reference to 'the bullet in the head' treatment didn't go down very well again.
No it was the rest of your wording that triggered the swear filter, and I wasn't in the mood for wasting time editing it out. Deletion is a lot quicker.
|
|
if you wish to discuss the mdoeration, then e-mail Dave. As you well know those discussions are not permitted here. M.
|
Hello.
First may i just appologise to any smokers in here.
Second sorry to hijack the thread.
If you cannot eat at the wheel why are we allowed to smoke cigarretes at the wheel.
They are both as bad (iam not on about health issues on this matter)
--
(iam not a mechanic)
Martin Winters
|
|
|
|
|
