'The fashion for long fringes among women is putting lives at risk on the road.
Eye - skimming celebrity styles mean some female drivers are just a "hair's breadth" from disaster, a survey found.
As many as 67 per cent of women have a hairstyle that can fall in their eyes while they are at the wheel, it said.
In the poll of 1,000 women drivers nearly half said they never tied their hair back before driving.'
Well, we have the clamp down on mobile phone use, eating, smoking at the wheel because it is considered dangerous. We have the issuing of fines to drivers whose side windows are considered to be too dark because they are dangerous Why shouldn't people who drive with their eyesight obscured not be treated like criminals as well ?
|
>>Why shouldn't people who drive with their eyesight obscured not be treated like criminals as well ? >>
Suppose they should be.
It is smoking that really bugs me, the fact that one is allowed to hold a lit cig while driving despite the fact that if if one dropped it on to one's Levis, Armani, or Alacantra one would be, er, just a little distracted from the task in hand.
Where as one can get done for eating a banana!
|
|
Or popping a sweet in to ones mouth.
|
|
Whilst visiting Leicester, SWMBO noticed a a battered Ford Galaxy - bumps and dents all over it. On looking higher, she was amused to see it was being driven by a lady wearing full head-covering, bar a tiny slit for her eyes.
|
If we had full Sharia law over here she would not be allowed to drive, or to be out alone without a chaperone!
|
she would not be allowed to drive, or to be out alone without a chap>>
;-) seems reasonable to me !
|
|
|
|
As with most aspects of safe driving its mainly about context in my view. Encouraging common sense attitudes strikes me as much more useful than blanket banning of normal human behaviour.
Whether it be eating, speaking, CD changing, radio tuning, conversing with passengers, smoking, chastising battling kids etc etc.........all realities of everyday life. None of these are particularly dangerous if you are on a quiet stretch of open road in calm weather. Doing any of them in adverse weather, heavy traffic or other unsuitable conditions is dim at best and dangerous at worst.
We can't keep on banning everything which may..... in certain circumstances...... increase the likelihood of an accident,. Taken to the "nth" degree you end up concluding that driving in itself is just too risky to be PC.
Less banning, more training in my humble !
|
>>Less banning, more training in my humble !>>
Agree in general though using a phone is distracting, even hands free, so I agree with the hand held ban and also would ban smoking in cars now if I could.
|
Agree in general though using a phone is distracting even hands free so I agree with the hand held ban and also would ban smoking in cars now if I could.
Fair enough, we are all entitled to our opinion. However, I still contend that having a quiet smoke on a clear stretch of motorway in calm weather is much less dangerous than say rooting around in the glovebox for a peppermint in heavy fast flowing traffic in bad weather for example.
Like I said common sense and an appreciation of context / prevailing conditions has a huge bearing on the rights and wrongs of this.
|
Fair enough we are all entitled to our opinion. However I still contend that having a quiet smoke on a clear stretch of motorway in calm weather is much less dangerous than say rooting around in the glovebox for a peppermint in heavy fast flowing traffic in bad weather for example.
Actually I agree with that Shoespy, individual responsibility, see the Speed thread.
|
|
Interestingly in this area it is the young men (Goths and the like) who wear their hair obscuring half their face totally while others have their chav hats pulled right down or dark shades on even in the semi dark. The girls seem to wearing their hair back off their faces.
|
The length and style of other people's hair is their business and theirs alone. It is of no conceivable interest to sane and mature individuals who are not hairdressers. They may think: that looks good/bad, but unless wishing to deliver a compliment they keep such thoughts to themselves.
This hair faffing reminds me of the late fifties/early sixties when people reacted strongly to hair an inch longer than short-back-and-sides and quite often had the damned cheek to utter illiterate grunts to that effect. Correct response was either none at all or a bunch of fives up the hooter.
|
|
|
|
|
£9,275was £9,575Details
£14,750was £15,000Details
£22,709was £22,929Details
£20,750was £21,250Details
