|
i think her number is 0780 ***********
|
|
|
Radio 4 sent a PM journalist out who spoke to some of those affected. He reported back that they seemd to be a very law abiding bunch, none of whom had ever used their mobile phones while driving. Well, fancy that.
V
|
|
A number of my repeat clients would swear blind that they are a law abiding bunch as well.
|
So if the fine is say £60 for being caught by police and she only slashes one tyre.... assuming not performance cars then not much difference. I congratulate her.
I just wish the police actually prosecuted drivers as they should. It makes my blood boil seeing people talking on a phone with it in hand, especially when the car costs a resonable amount. You see them driving around, taking junctions with one hand on phone, one hand on steering wheel and the third hand on the gear stick.
And drivers with Bluetooth headsets also look like prats, and are frying their brains since BT uses 2.4GHz -- the same as microwave ovens!
Why cannot people find money for a properly fitted car kit or better, switch off the phone when driving.
Rant off :-)
|
rtj70,
If I may take your argument to it's logical conclusion, then do I have your support to damage £2500 worth of your property for Incitement to commit criminal damage, and put you in my shed for 3 months or both?
|
There was no argument or logical conclusion. I don't agree with causing criminal damage. But if it is proved the damage is for drivers breaking the law using mobiles whilst driving then they are not exactly innocent either.
I personally hope there's 3 or more points and £60 fine for using a mobile whilst holding it soon. But I think that is probably coming and maybe police will act then.
Obviously if you're caught damaging my property (like the tyre slasher) then I'd hope you'd be prosecuted for it.
|
Forgot to add, I was in a bad accident in Italy. Hit from behind by an HGV in the hire car. Lucky to be alive and if there were rear passengers they would have been dead. So if for example the HGV driver was proved to be on a mobile then I'd hope they severely prosecute.
Having said that, the two police officers that remained with us in A&E for the afternoon drove us to what was left of the hire car to retrieve what was left of the luggage (not much). The driver turned on the blue lights and proceeded to drive at 140kph in a 90, charging down other cars. His phone rang and he answered i whilst driving the same. And there's us two in the back in neck braces and me with a bandaged head (needed a CT scan).
So I have reason to be anti-mobile in the car.
|
What about this scenario...
Driver A uses hand-held phone and is perfectly in control of car.
Driver B has one is daydreaming
Which one would make you more angry?
|
Both are driving illegaly in your example.
If you lived near me and I knew you used your mobile illegaly on a regular basis whilst driving then maybe I would record you and send the tape to the CPS and/or Police. Illegal is illegal.
Lets change your example to see if it is okay:
A. Driver has drunk 3+ pints but drives okay
B. Driver has drunk 3+ pints and is driving poorly
Which is okay?
|
|
|
The one that caused an accident maybe? Injuring or killing someone.
For gods sake using a mobile whilst holding it and driving is illegal. Using one hands free and there's an accident means it can still be used in a court and used to prove dangerous driving. Think on all, especially ashok who I get the feeling thinks you can use a mobile okay whilst holding and driving. If I'm wrong then apologies. if you ever do then I hope you get a ban before you kill someone.
|
rtj70,
may I suggest you climb down from your high horse. You've made your views quite clear several times now in this thread. Enough for people to realise you feel quite strongly about usage of mobile phones in cars.
Thanks, DD.
|
>>may I suggest you climb down from your high horse.
I guess we know where you stand on using a mobile while driving then.
>>You've made your views quite clear several times now in this thread
Could you let me know how often a single point can be made in one thread by an individual before it counts as high-horsedness ? Just for the avoidanbce of doubt.
I'm right up there with rtj70. All too often one comes along behind a car which is being driven badly - too slow, wandering in and out of lane, speed up and down, whatever - and then as you go past you realise that they are holding a phone to their ear. I find speaking on the phone can be distracting, even using a car kit, but these idiots give example after example of how holding the phone to your ear makes it worse - especially by upsetting your sitting position and removing one hand from action.
The fact that the law is not enforced (or even the way that the law was approached in the first place) is frustrating, but not as frustrating as the idiots I see every morning.
I don't agree with the tyre slashing, particularly since I suspect that it is neither accurate nor actuallly based on someone being seen using a phone. However, I can't say that my cup of sympathy is particularly runneth over, either.
[sigh] still no doubt everybody on here can still driving like a super-mega-being while on the phone with one hand, drinking coffee with the second, and holding the pastie in the third.
|
I guess we know where you stand on using a mobile while driving then.
Not at all. But there was already a law in place (driving without due care and attention) without there needing a new law to be created - which as illustrated above, neither the police or phone uses take any notice of.
Some people can multitask, whereas others cannot. Distractions in the car can be many. Changing the station or tape on the stereo, smoking, Sat Nav, or even changing gear can be a great challenge for some people, but there hasn't been a separate law banning that. I have no qualms with anyone having a phone conversation (using hands free) providing they are not a hazzard to other road users.
Could you let me know how often a single point can be made in one thread by an individual before it counts as high-horsedness ? Just for the avoidanbce of doubt.
No FM2R, I'm not up for an argument with you. I stepped in with my moderators hat on in this thread as rtj70 had made his point and feelings known on several occasions, both to Ashok and others. You yourself as an former moderator should know the tell tale signs of potential irrateness starting to appear.
DD.
|
You've certainly got to watch out for that irrateness, it can cause all sorts of issues.
>I stepped in with my moderators hat
Jumped, dear heart, jumped. "jumped" would be much more appropriate, as opposed to the action which was not.
|
Jumped, dear heart, jumped.
;o)
|
Some people can multitask, whereas others cannot. Distractions in the car can be many. DD.
In the early eighties, arriving in Paris from Africa, I was given a lift into town from the airport by a French TV crew who had been on the same flight. The company car that had come to fetch the TV men, a CX estate, swallowed the crew, all its equipment, my suitcase and me. Once out on the motorway to town, in fairly heavy traffic, the driver accelerated swiftly to a 100mph cruise, then began a series of phone calls with the car phone (no mobiles in those days, but a handset all the same).
It didn't feel remotely dangerous, nor was it. People make a tiresome clamour about this as about so many other things.
|
|
|
|
I personally hope there's 3 or more points and £60 fine for using a mobile whilst holding it soon.
I don't suppose you know if I can pay the fine by txt, do you? ;-)
|
Chuffer spends his working day driving round the area in the original news report.
There isn't a day when he doesn't see at least half a dozen drivers using mobiles while driving, often while negotiating busy roundabaouts and junctions, and frequently at places where I know road deaths have occurred in recent years.
One of the vehicles he has seen recently was on the news report with slashed tyres, notable that he didn't actually deny using a mobile while driving.
Vigilante action isn't right, but its not suprising it occurs when people find themselves watching others blatently breaking the law with impunity day after day.
|
I remember having this debate on this forum before the act became law.
I was anti the new law: NOT because I want to use a mobile phone in a car (I don't) or want others to (I don't) but because it was CLEAR to anyone who looked objectively at it that the law would NOT be enforceable.
And the reasons for that are b... obvious: 10% fewer traffic cops in the past 10? years/etc.
The police can't even enforce 30mph speed limits beside schools so what chance of catching mobile phone users.
Rant:
another example of politicians thinking a new law will solve a problem. Anpother new law not enforced. More dragging the law into disrepute.
Rant over.
As far as vigilante action is concerned, deplore it but I I fear this may the tip of a very large iceberg over the next few years as law abiding tax paying citizens compare how they are traeted vs those who are neither.
madf
|
10% fewer?
Where you been hiding. In most police areas at any one time at least 50% of the traffpol are off doing other emergency calls - ie non traffic duties.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Where you been hiding. In most police areas at any one time at least 50% of the traffpol are off doing other emergency calls - ie non traffic duties.
Not around here (Thames Valley).
I regularly pass a speed trap set up with one camera van, 4 to 8 motorcycle cops and 2 - 4 panda cars. Seems like overkill to me especially as said camera van is conspicuously parked under a fixed Gatso!
Looks like plenty of spare manpower in the traffic section.
|
I regularly pass a speed trap set up with one camera van, 4 to 8 motorcycle cops and 2 - 4 panda cars. Seems like overkill to me especially as said camera van is conspicuously parked under a fixed Gatso!
Where is this?
|
|
Some polices forces (sorry - Services) don't even have traffic departments any more!
|
|
My BiL stops plenty of drivers for using mobile phones, but what deterrant is a few quid paid to HM Government? At least add some points to the licence of the offender. The effects of using a phone in terms of distraction are similar to that of driving whilst over the limit. Make the penalties for both offences the same and see what happens.
|
Am I the only person who doesn't really care about this? Admittedly, slashing tyres is probably taking things a bit too far, but if these people weren't using their phones they wouldn't be in this situation.
Suspect culprit was probably involved in an accident where someone was on a phone. Shouldn't be too difficult to track down.
|
|
Tampering with any safety-related item should be seen as a serious offence, whether it be a phonebox, lifebuoy, tyre, brake pipe or fire extinguisher.
|
Tyre stabbing, apart from being very toeraggish if done at random, as this seems to be, is in fact malicious property damage liable to cost car owners anything from £30 to £100 plus.
You would have to have a much better reason than the one given by the vandal this thread is about, to have a chance of not being fined and made to pay compensation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
