Just how are the two of them going to cope emotionally and psychologically having witnessed such a wicked incident.
Perhaps they should have counselling.
|
Perhaps they should have counselling.
Alas, it may be too late for that. Lasting emotional trauma is all too often the result of witnessing serious crimes. A relation of mine has been in a straitjacket for thirty years, destroyed mentally by witnessing at a tender age a uniformed constable openly picking his nose. These things leave lasting scars.
|
Actually I understand the concern of the OP !
What on earth would have happened if whilst he was on the phone a lighted cigarette butt came flying through the window.
Call the police! Again! its only taxes !
Perhaps I have more to worry about than some !
|
He wouldn't have needed the blues and two's:)
Pat
|
|
Well that got a few intersting replies. When my sis,s came in and told me i thought maybe the backroomers would be stimulated by this thread. In answer to a few posts. Regarding them needing councelling ive always thought both of them needed that many years ago. Nope they will not raise a finger or question the poor performing ambulance service according to the recent leaugue tables. Personnally i thought the driver must be making a private call. Because surely if it was a service call the co driver could have taken it. One might say what if he was with a patient, well i would have thought the driver would have had hands free capability. I don,t think the blues n two,s were going.
|
Don't most ambulance services now use the same system as the fire & police - i.e. radios that look like mobile phones but are actually exempt from the regs?
If this was the case, then he wasn't breaking any law. And he's also allowed to park on double yellows - even if not on a call. So long as he's on duty.....
|
"If this was the case, then he wasn't breaking any law. And he's also allowed to park on double yellows - even if not on a call. So long as he's on duty....."
You are wrong. If it was a case of an official radio being used then his front passenger should have taken the call. Emergency service vehicles are only exempt from certain road regulations while on the blue light or parked at an incident. Otherwise parking any emergency vehicle on double yellow lines any other time, the driver is open to prosecution as any driver.
|
I'm a bit surprised by the laissez-faire attitude of some replies to this thread.
Drivers using mobiles annoy me, only because I know such behaviour can result in the death or serious injury of another road user.
It matters not a jot what the driver does for a living.
Use of a mobile, particularly a handheld, is a distraction and makes an accident much more likely.
Put it another way, I've never sat through a death by dangerous court case in which the defendant said: ''I'd have killed him anyway, whether I was on the phone or not."
|
I think it would also be positive for road safety if it was made illegal to do the following.
Adjust any vehicle controls whilst driving.
Do not under any circumstances converse with passegers. This is just as distracting as conversing on a mobile phone.
Do not deal with any form of itch by scratching.
Do not check your instruments. One moment of inattention could cause problems.
Do not look at the scenery whilst passing.
Do not put gum/sweet etc in mouth. Means the use of one hand to do so.
The list goes on.
This post certainly puts such things as Afghanistan bombs on planes etc on the back burner.
You have to get the priorities right.
I am still searching for that miscreant ambulance driver . Will not sleep till i have caught one out.
Now gone fishing.
|
Miata,
No doubt you would take the same stance if Mrs Miata was wiped out by a driver on his mobile.
|
Whats the difference between an ambulance or any other service person on his phone or on the radio?
Does 1 mean its safe and 1 not ?
There are more ways to kill with a car than just with a phone!
hands up anybody who has never touched their phone whilst driving?
hands up anybody never driven whilst over the limit of drink?
hands up anybody who has never been speeding?
hands up to anybody driven without a seatbelt?
hands up anybody who has never got to destination without thinking, "I dont remember going past/through/over xyz !"
hands up anybody who has never chatted to passengers, front and back whilst driving?
All these situations and more are dangerous, its been proven etc !
Driving a car is dangerous !
|
Driving a car is dangerous !
Yes it is, but there is no need to make it more dangerous than it is, especially when using a mobile whilst driving is "avoidable", against the law, and probably a sackable offence for that driver.
I have to admit that I'm quite surprised by some backroomers indifference to an ambulance driver doing this... what if it had been you in the back of that ambulance, would you have been happy knowing that your driver was not concentrating on getting you to hospital safely?
|
Speeding is also dangerous; its been proven!
So if you were in the back of that ambulance in a critical condition, you would want and expect him to stick to the road speed limits?
Its a case of making sure you are perfect before criticising others, if you read and understood my whole post, not just the 1 part !
|
|
Perhaps if it had involved a fatality some backroomers would have taken a slightly different tack... A "professional" such as an Ambulance driver should be an example to others on how to do things safely... this one was not a good example.
|
Of all the accidents I have been out to on the roads over the years, I have never had the phone held as responsible, including emergency service comments and opinions ! (but I am sure it does happen)
Careless, thoughtless, poor drivers mostly !
Maybe some are whither than white when it comes to reporting other peoples errors ?
|
Try watching those police progs, YB, plenty of examples there... and look for the "wandering" car, chances are its driver is on the mobile... I agree there are plenty of things which make driving dangerous, but I don't see any harm in the Law trying to stop ones which are easily avoidable... It only takes one second of inattention to lose control of a car... how many of them in a 3 minute phone call I wonder...
Oh and unless the OP got it wrong, they didn't report it, just commented to others about it...
Edited by b308 on 29/12/2009 at 14:37
|
"Oh and unless the OP got it wrong, they didn't report it, just commented to others about it..."
exactly, knocking other people; just hope they are perfect too !
as for watching the police programmes, I dont need to, I see real life examples. Swerving non concentrating tends to be a lot more than phone use ! Ask a few experienced people!
And for errors whilst driving; I am sure if I folowed you I could criticise you for something every 100 yards etc. The perfect driver has not been invented yet !
We dont know the circumstances of the phone (or radio) use, the conditions of the road, the volume of the traffic etc etc.
Its not right I know, but nor is speeding ! But I dont suppose you have ever done that have you ?
|
I have never said I am perfect, YB.
But I do try to be as safe in my driving as I can be, but that doesn't mean I don't make mistakes and hopefully learn by them... Just like you, perhaps?! ;-)
However I, and any other member of the public, am fully entitled to criticise someone who should not be doing what they are doing, especially when its a so-called professional driver who shouldn't be doing it in the first place...
I suspect that motoring forums would be very quiet places if we didn't have something to moan about!
|
|
Oh! And they did report it! Its on here !
|
The important question, unreported !
was the vehicle being driven in a manner likely to harm, injure or interfere with any other road user ?
Thats more important than having a phone at the ear !
was it a phone, was it a radio? Was it on ? So many unanswered questions; but he is automatically guilty !
|
Some years ago I was using a mobile phone and looked up just in time to avoid running into the back of another vehicle. The only time I used one in the car after that was if I wasn't driving. Years later I was hit by a guy who was on his mobile at the time. I was out of action for some time. I was also a witness to a case where I saw someone on a mobile phone cause an accident.
Driving can be a risky business. Best to reduce the risk wherever possible.
|
He was using a mobile phone whilst driving, if that is true then he is, surely?
Going a little OTT now, aren't you YB!
Edited by b308 on 29/12/2009 at 14:53
|
|
If you know that from the information given then I bow to you !
|
Perhaps people aren't being 'laissez-faire' about this. Perhaps they think that, all other things being equal, the ambulance driver should have stopped before using his telephone.
Perhaps though they aren't too surprised that he did what most people do sometimes. Perhaps they don't think it's the end of the world, since nothing bad happened.
|
|
Re-read my post again YB, you've missed the words "if that is true" when you read it!
Edited by b308 on 29/12/2009 at 15:03
|
So, may i repeat it as a question?
Was it true ?
|
|
And I think Lud has summised correctly and well !
|
I would suggest the majority of road traffic collisions are due to errors of judgement and momentary lapses of concentation.
I doubt there will be any evidence to support a reduction in casualties since the use of mobile phones was made illegal.
I do not possess a mobile phone and have no intention of having.To the contributor who suggested i would not be impressed if my mrs was wiped out by a driver using a mobile phone. Obviously not.
Neither would i be impressed if she was killed by being assaulted or received an overdose of drugs in hospital due to a human error or died in a plane crash due to pilot under the influence etc etc etc.
I prefer not too bother about what might happen but deal with whats happened or is happening.
Perhaps just ban life as its a very dangerous occupation.
Dam i need to reduce the temperature of the climate control. But better not just in case.
|
Was it true ?
Why ask me, it wasn't my sisters?! Try asking Brentus...
To be honest I'm not that wound up about it, just disappointed that people think its ok for a professional driver to break the law "because we all do it"... surely we should expect more from them? Which I suspect is actually what the two sisters were thinking when they commented on it in the first place...
It would seem from the replies that I am alone in expecting higher standards from these drivers...
Edited by b308 on 29/12/2009 at 15:10
|
|
You are not wrong b308, but equally they are only humans !
|
No you are wrong there.The emergency services are not classed as human beings.
They are robots. Not allowed to err at all. Not allowed to eat or drink on duty etc etc.
When police canteens were closed in my county.
The number of complaints in local papers etc from The Empty Life Brigade about officers seen buying sandwiches drinks etc in local shops.
Again no problem unlike the rest of us their blood/sugar level remains spot on without nourishment for at least 36 hours.
|
|
Glad you have seen the light.
|
"It would seem from the replies that I am alone in expecting higher standards from these drivers... 2
I wonder how much these super mortals get paid ?
Oh, is that all? Maybe they are just ordinary people then, that actually do the job because they care about other people.
For that alone I allow them the odd misdemeanour !
|
Rants. Not at all. Just sensible debate with a little bit of banter thrown in for good measure.
I wish the fish i attempt to catch swallowed the bait as easily.
B308 looking at your posts i guess your blood pressure is higher than mine juding by your rants.
But do not ring an ambulance as it may not arrive due to being on a phone radio etc etc . What is the world coming to.
|
PS Well said YorkieBar.
In the whole scheme of things that puts it in perspective.
|
Spoke to eldest daughter about the OP's post when she came today.
She's a paramedic.
Says in her area the Paras are allowed to use the phone in a situation such as alerting the hospital as to what is happening in the back of the ambulance so they can make the appropriate arrangements.. often the second Para is doing CPR or something critical.
Ted
|
|
Not being a mobile fascist that sounds like a reasonable explanation but why don't they just get hands free sets.
|
There seem to be quite a few 'Disgusteds of Tunbridge Wells' in the Backroom at the moment - some people may not have had a very good Christmas and are getting worked up about things they can't do anything about. If Craig Brown (today in my wife's Daily Mail) is to be believed, they may have been sharing a house with a Stilton cheese - which I agree could explain any amount of grumpiness.
I'm with Humph and his mum on this one. My mother (92 not out) was a Wren officer in WW2 and would take a very similar view to Mrs Backbridge senior.
|
Thats it exactly !
We dont know the full circumstances of this event, but a lot seem to have tried and hung the "offender". In my eyes without any proof at all !
|
why don't they just get hands free sets.
Is a good point, but not sure I'd want a doodah hanging off my ear or falling out of my pockets if I was trying to do what these guys do. I guess another way round it would be something akin to one of the old carphones built into the ambulance.
Another alternative, seeing as the resident Jeremiads on this forum appear to believe that members of the emergency services should not be prone to normal human frailties, would be telepathic communication with the control room.
|
It is obvious from the comments of the Jeremiads ( that description is priceless) on this matter that any member of the emergency services who commits such a wicked and evil human transgression should be hung until dead nothing less.
What an empty boring life some folk live if such matters are of vital importance.
Its a pity they do not work in such occupations but i think we can hazard a guess what line of work they will be involved in.
Why dont they just lodge a complaint with the PCT and get an explanation and waste more valuable time.
Oh by the way i saw an ambulance driver having a crafty cigarette at the rear of a casualty department despite the signs saying no smoking on the premises.
Now what should happen to him. Sacking or hanging etc etc.
It was a terrible offence for a professionallets be realistic.
|
|
My best mate is a paramedic in Berkshire. He drives solo in a T5 Volvo.He cant take or make emergency calls once he is doing more than 135mph as the wind noise from the lights bar on the roof is deafening inside the vehicle. Response speed to certain criteria will push the vehicles limits and the drivers(sometimes exceeding them) His first T5 was written off by another paramedic when just three weeks old. Knowing what he does and sees on a regular basis, its certainly one of the most under paid jobs going.I couldn't do it and wouldn't want to. It take a certain breed to deal with such horror's and then be able to switch off when you get home to the wife and kids. Big respect for him and all his colleagues.
|
"Big respect for him and all his colleagues."
me too !
shame they get picked on for such as this thread !
|
slightly OT but relevant.
when the mobile phone restrictions whilst trying to drive came in and a good few months after that, i reported 2 people. moving along a dual carriageway in London in relatively slow to mid paced stop start traffic, a van cut me up - one of those council vans with the rear cut off to make space for brooms/bins etc. Then to add insult to injury the chappy was driving inconsistantly compared to other traffic and this is when i noted the mobile being used. On the back of his van was one of those message 'am i driving well' with a freecall number. I reported him and did say that i did not want him fired. Then i followed through by checking that the person had been pulled up. then a simialr thing happened a few months after that and i reported the person again but no follow through. These people that drive local authority vehicles are the so-called face of the council and their non-uniformed staff. I did the LA workers a favour as these 2 blokes were giving a bad impression of that council.
I'm no jobs worth, but i hate people driving without due care & attention as they hold up others and put at risk other drivers and pedestrians.
|
|
They don't fail me, but I'd better keep them to myself.
|
"I'm no jobs worth, but i hate people driving without due care & attention as they hold up others and put at risk other drivers and pedestrians."
What an unbelievable pious comment Paul ! Think about your other comments if you dont understand this comment !
|
|
Well I think if you are going to drive something with one of those 'am I driving well' things on the side then to a certain extent you have to expect people to report it if you aren't.
|
... but i hate people driving without due care & attention as they hold up others and put at risk other drivers and pedestrians...
'Hate' might be a poor choice of word, but I'm certainly no fan of drivers who drive without due care and attention.
Who could be?
Edited by ifithelps on 30/12/2009 at 14:32
|
... but i hate people driving without due care & attention as they hold up others and put at risk other drivers and pedestrians... 'Hate' might be a poor choice of word but I'm certainly no fan of drivers who drive without due care and attention. Who could be?
True, but the key point is that the people who drive like that (in the opinion of others) don't believe they are driving badly. Therefore they see nothing wrong in what they are doing, so they won't take kindly to being given "advice"
|
Paul you should become a lorry driver (not really).
You'd be surprised what we see going on in cars from the height of a lorry cab when they come past us.
You'd be as happy as a dog in a forest.
Pat
|
'Hate' might be a poor choice of word, but I'm certainly no fan of drivers who drive without due care and attention.
Who could be?
But he is asserting that smokers and/or phone users are automatically worse drivers than others !
I can assure you there are plenty out there with neither habit who are far worse a driver than many with the habits.
Its time to wake up and understand bad driving is bad driving; it doesnt need anything else with it!
|
"True, but the key point is that the people who drive like that (in the opinion of others) don't believe they are driving badly. Therefore they see nothing wrong in what they are doing, so they won't take kindly to being given "advice""
Thats only partially true.
Bad drivers come in all shapes sizes and styles!
I dont smoke and I dont use the phone whilst driving. Does that make me a good driver with due care and attention at all times? Apparantly so, so I suppose thats thank you all !
In reality I dont consider myself a good driver, merely average !
|
Yorkie and Miata, the point I was making, and you seem to like to ridicule for some reason which you haven't clarified, is that so-called professional drivers should be better than the rest of us... I would certainly want an ambulance driver or fire engine driver to be better than us, and we are often told that they are. So to do something that is both illegal and avoidable... and which endangers the lives of others I do not feel is acceptable...
It seems that some of you are saying that everyone makes mistakes and we should allow for that, fine I agree, but this was not a mistake, it was deliberate...
I am not acting as judge and jury in this case, as I said earlier we can only go on what the OP tells us and so there may be mitigating circumstances, as mentioned later in the thread, but if there aren't then I see no excuse.
Whats the point in having a sensible law which bans something that is proven to cause bad driving, and far worse, if those people who you would expect to know better and who have to pick up the pieces of such actions when things go wrong then go out and do the same thing themselves... What sort of message does that send out to the rest of us?
Its funny how people lambasted a police driver driving at 135mph on an empty motorway in the early hours in an earlier thread and then feel its acceptable for an ambulance driver to use a mobile whilst driving... double standards methinks...
|
so-called professional drivers should be better than the rest of us...
Why should they b308?
They may have some training, but they may not. They may have a lot of experience, but they may not. They may have slow reactions and be incredibly stupid. They may even be psychologically unstable or deeply criminal.
In all of these respects they are just like the rest of us. So why do you think they should be better drivers than other people, or more law-abiding when their bosses aren't looking?
They are just drivers of vehicles like everyone else.
|
>>>>at so-called professional drivers should be better than the rest of us<<<<
I remember a post on this forum a few months ago where you all proved categorically that lorry Drivers were NOT Professionals.
Certainly I agree regarding the wages we're paid, but I resent being classed as a professional when I do something that someone I consider to be an amateur, considers to be wrong.
|
>>They are just drivers of vehicles like everyone else
I suppose thats where we differ in our views, Lud. With the job they are doing I expect them to take more care in their actions, and have better standards... We may have to put our lives in their hands one day, so which would you want, someone who cares about their driving, or one who will cut corners or break the law if the boss's back is turned?
|
My last post may have given the false impression that I don't think pro drivers are better than average.
They are, of course, because it's what they do every day for a living. That does two things: it keeps you sharp, and it makes you canny (because other vehicles are always trying to involve you in accidents).
Emergency service drivers are the cream of the crop, for obvious reasons. They are kings of the road with their lights and sirens, and so they should be.
Lesser folk - white van men, flying witches and the like - must be pretty good too because I don't usually notice them. Their worst faults are tailgating and dawdling, but I always heave a sigh of relief when I find myself in company with a couple of good ones on a nice single carriageway A road, batting along several speedo mph over the limit. Not like all the carp Jags and BMWs cluttering up the home counties with their pompous mimsing.
The pros are at their best in London, where they hardly ever get in the way unlike faffing citizens in their tiny little cars and ghastly rich people with their unwieldy ones. Of course there's a percentage of very poor expatriate drivers of grocery-chain patchwork vans and today's minicab drivers in big people carriers with the TfL logo are an utter disgrace to a noble profession.
|
"Whats the point in having a sensible law which bans something that is proven to cause bad driving"
lets ask you again then, as you didnt reply to this before?
If you are in the back of an ambulance in a critical condition would you expect the driver to exceed the speed limit (laid down in law and proven to be dangerous and killing people) in your need to get to hospital?
I am sure you would; and so would I !
Please explain how breaking 1 law (that is proven to be dangerous and life threatening) is safer than breaking another law ? Or is ok to choose which laws to break?
Now back to another question? Was he on the phone for personal or preofessional use? was he actually on the phone? Was the phone on?
Now whos is guilty ? Of what ?
|
If an ambulance is going back to a hospital in an emergency (blues and twos) its not breaking the law if it exceeds speed limits...
As for the other question, Yorkie, I've already answered you several times, try re-reading my posts.
|
equally if the driver is on the phone for professional advice regarding his patient in the back, or scene he is about to attend he MAY ALSO not be breaking any law.
You need more FACTS before jumping to any conclusions !
You want better drivers, pay them better! They do the job because they CARE ABOUT LIFE not about threatening it !
And whilst emergency services are generally not prosecuted for breaking speed limits in emergency situations they are certainly not immune from road laws (including speeding!)
You are trying to prove a guy guilty without any real facts. That is out of order !
|
It is a major worry this guy on the phone or whatever he was doing.
I still think he should be hung for not being the perfect human being who obviously exists.
No wonder society is in the state it is when such an event causes so much consternation among the politically correct brigade.
Lets start a moaners corner where such life changing events can be got off ones chest.
Forget knife crime child abuse terrorism etc.
Funny how people can spot an emergency service worker commiting such a wicked act but fail to spot muggers burglars etc.
|
"Funny how people can spot an emergency service worker commiting such a wicked act but fail to spot muggers burglars etc. "
Spot on! How many of the pc brigade actually close their eyes to such situations for fear of getting involved!
Live and let live !
Ever driven away without looking fully and nearly hit /been hi by somebody/thing ?? With or without phone at the ear its just as bad! The phone doesnt make it worse !
You also have to understand the reasoning behind the law on mobiles was really afgainst texting; but difficult to enforce that, so the whole mobile gambit becomes necessary.
Hope you dont travel with the music on your stereo so loud it drowns out other noises and steals your attention, the same principal !
|
You are trying to prove a guy guilty without any real facts. That is out of order !
As I said, re-read my posts Yorkie, and stop putting words in my mouth.
I have clearly said several times that we can only go on what the OP said, and that IF (note the word) there were no mitigating reasons, then what that driver did was unacceptable. As far as I'm aware that only makes him (or her?) "guilty" if he (or she) was doing it on that basis. How is that out of order?
As for pay, yes perhaps they are due more, but that on its own is no reason to accept lower standards. Regardless of my level of pay I've still tried to do my job to the best of my abilities, seems to be rather an old fashioned view now... mores the pity... may as well just keep accepting lower standards then, is that what you mean?
|
Ok Miata, I'm obviously not allowed to pass comment, especially when its on someone possibly doing something illegal and dangerous...
Must remember that for future... let me know when I overstep the mark again will you...
Edited by b308 on 30/12/2009 at 17:19
|
b308, until and unless you know the full facts, all you can say is that emergency drivers should not be on the phone without due cause.
Was this guy different to that then ?
I dont know, but i will cetainly give him the benefit of the doubt in this case!
And regarding pay, most of them would still do the job even if paid less. If thats not comitment what is?
Edited by yorkiebar on 30/12/2009 at 17:26
|
>>b308, until and unless you know the full facts, all you can say is that emergency drivers should not be on the phone without due cause
Which is what I said... I'm glad you have finally agreed with me!
Now lets move on, eh!
Edited by b308 on 30/12/2009 at 17:28
|
Yorkiebar.
I am with you all the way.
You just have to accept some people live in the real world others in a protective cocoon.
I guess like me you have been a worker in one of the emergency services.
It stands out a mile those who have not.
Its a wonder the elf and safety act has not been quoted as yet.
I wonder if our troops on active service where ever are very careful not to use a phone/radio whilst driving.
God forbid the possible consequences of that unforgivable action.
If i ever have to travel in an emergency ambulance and i am awake i will instruct driver to keep to speed limits etc just in case.
Cannot have him making such decisions and taking chances and if his partner is working on me likewise driver not to use phone/ radio etc to pass important information about my condition.
God forbid. Just in case. If i survive i will pat them on the back for not taking any such risks.
|
Which is what I said... I'm glad you have finally agreed with me!
Now lets move on, eh!
Agree, no, sorry.
Move on certainly !
|
Agree, no, sorry.
You just did, kiddo! Thats the point I was making all along!
|
b308
I understood from your posts that we did not have the full circumstances and facts.
So how can you say his actions were dangerous and illegal if we do not have the full facts.
By all means say what you wish and you will not overstep any mark dont worry.
Just be prepared to be challenged and defend your assertions.
|
Yorkiebar
Yes it was hard work for you but you persevered and got there in the end. Well done.
Common sense and rationality prevails in the end.
GONE FISHING
|
b308
Thats not fair on yorkiebar for you to now backtrack after all his hard work to win you over.
|
Thats not fair on yorkiebar for you to now backtrack after all his hard work to win you over.
And thats not fair on me, I was simply making the point that if the story were true that it was unacceptable, I have never backtracked on anything, though as I said below i think that both you and Yorkie have misinterpreted the meaning of my posts...
|
So how can you say his actions were dangerous and illegal if we do not have the full facts.
All I said was that IF they were true then his driving was unacceptable.
Just be prepared to be challenged and defend your assertions.
No problem, but in the past I have misinterpreted other peoples posts, and I think that both you and Yorkie have done so with mine in this case... Look at the post a couple ago which I quoted from one of Yorkie's posts, what he said is exactly the point I have been making all along... Seems we have been going round in circles...
Edited by b308 on 30/12/2009 at 17:39
|
|
No you also said his actions were dangerous and illegal. Stick to your script.
|
Anyay glad to see you have come round to our point of view. Thanks.
Now definately GONE FISHING
|
If what was said was true and there were no mitigating circumstances - thats been my script...
Not fancy a pint or two instead? Can't stand fishing!
Edited by b308 on 30/12/2009 at 17:45
|
Right, I've just put my Flying Witch hat on, so come on you two, time to shake hands and agree to disagree.
You too Yorkie, before I get my broomstick out:)
Pat
|
Yep, you are quite right Pat... sorry lads, can we move on?
|
Oh do stop it children. Listen to nice b308. He's said sorry!
Now be good.
|
Nice?! Nice?!!
How dare you!
Ruined my reputation in one post... :-)
|
Mine too:)
I'm used to a yard full of quivering male lorry drivers when I put that hat on and it didn't work on here!!
Pat
|
miata wrote of yorkiebar: ''I guess like me you have been a worker in one of the emergency services.''
Ah, now we have it.
Bunker mentality - 'you are all against us'.
The usual garbage I've heard over the years when any criticism is levelled at one of the three nines services, or the CPS, or the council, or the...
It is a stupid and dangerous to use a mobile while driving.
It is no more or less stupid for a dentist, dustman or a down-and-out.
The occupation is irrelevant.
|
Ifithelps
No it certainly does not help you having such a narrow minded blinkered attitude.
What line of work are you in. Bunker attitude applies to you no doubt.
Get real. Another perfectionist joins the discussion now its finished. Dream on.
|
Where I work (Ambulance service) all front line vehicles are now(recently) fitted with hands free mobile phones. As far as I am aware, we are not entitled to use a mobile phone whilst driving i.e. by holding it to our ear, but we do still and always have used the hand held microphone to transmit messages to control (now known for some reason as "Access and Response").
Although this person may well have been using the mobile phone, another, in my opinion, likely explanation is that they were talking on the microphone, and it appered at a casual glance to be a telephone.
If this person was using the telephone, I think that they were being a bit stupid, but that's up to them.
|
Think Reggie sums it up nicely.
|
At the bottom of the legislation pasted below there are defences for drivers, depending on the circumstances of use and need to use the phone.
H8692 / Use a handheld mobile phone / device while driving a motor vehicle on a road - endorseable offence
Offence Wording
On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) drove a motor vehicle, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..), on a road, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD AND LOCATION..), when you were using
(A)_[a hand-held mobile telephone]_
(B)_[an interactive communications device, namely **(..SPECIFY THE TYPE OF HAND HELD DEVICE..)]_
Legislation
Contrary to regulation 110(1) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, section 41D of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Notes
(i) Statement of Facts procedure applies - see end of document for wording.
(ii) Fixed penalty scheme may be applied.
(iii) This is an endorseable offence introduced by section 26 of the Road Safety Act 2006.
(iv) Officers should note the defence to this offence provided by regulation 110(5) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 which states:-
A person does not contravene a provision of this regulation if, at the time of the alleged contravention -
(a) he is using the telephone or other device to call the police, fire, ambulance or other emergency service on 112 or 999;
(b) he is acting in response to a genuine emergency; and
(c) it is unsafe or impracticable for him to cease driving in order to make the call.
Powers Of Arrest
|
WP
You got home access to the PNLDB??
|
|
