FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Police to seize mobiles in every car crash
Police to seize mobiles in every car crash
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"but what about those who have a car with built in hands free?? the call you make/recieve still shows up on your phone even though it was on handsfree" oh yeah - derrr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just catching up with today's newspaper. Whereas previously - mobiles were only seized in accidents where there was a death or serious injury - it is now recommended they're seized following any motor vehicle accident. 500 people a year are estimated to be killed or seriously injured due to drivers on their phone chatting or texting etc. I can see this two ways, if some idiot has crashed into my car - the last thing i'd want is my mobile taken so I lose all my contacts until it's returned. However, I see so many drivers blatantly on their mobiles even when trying to turn at a junction (plus the secret texters) that I suspect mobile phones are responsible for a larger than accounted for amount of accidents. So I'd rather not have my phone for a few days if it cuts down on accidents and makes drivers think twice. Your thoughts ? " Keep a cheap unlocked PAYG phone in the glovebox, use it occasionally , hand it over to dibble smiling sweetly. Its ok for them to take hands off the wheel and answer a radio call though via touching buttons... like whats that about | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People are influence by what they perceive as the likely probability of something happening. As most people irrationally believe they are above average drivers and so unlikely to crash, and with crash frequencies being very low, it would make little difference if any to people using their phones. The majority of people who call and text whilst driving should be the targets, not a tiny minority who crash. Some would pull out a rarely used standby phone that has no activity on it and hand it over instead, thus making this idea a farce. I get very annoyed with mobile users and would love it to stop. Sound your horn at them when you can and if seeming safe. " The police are suppose to check mobile phones after an accident or when you are stopped when using your phone as part of a full investigation if they do not check after you are stopped for using your phone they have not carried out a full investigation and I know of at least 5 people who have got away with it on them grounds in the last 6 months | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Each drivers phone is likely to be checked for use prior to crash timing. If you've not been using it a quick check is sufficient and you're phone shall be returned. You won't have it 'seized' if you're not the guilty party. People had to get used to wearing seatbelts but simply can't go without using their phones, why? I'd double the points penalty for basic usage." I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just catching up with today's newspaper. Whereas previously - mobiles were only seized in accidents where there was a death or serious injury - it is now recommended they're seized following any motor vehicle accident. 500 people a year are estimated to be killed or seriously injured due to drivers on their phone chatting or texting etc. I can see this two ways, if some idiot has crashed into my car - the last thing i'd want is my mobile taken so I lose all my contacts until it's returned. However, I see so many drivers blatantly on their mobiles even when trying to turn at a junction (plus the secret texters) that I suspect mobile phones are responsible for a larger than accounted for amount of accidents. So I'd rather not have my phone for a few days if it cuts down on accidents and makes drivers think twice. Your thoughts ? Keep a cheap unlocked PAYG phone in the glovebox, use it occasionally , hand it over to dibble smiling sweetly. Its ok for them to take hands off the wheel and answer a radio call though via touching buttons... like whats that about " Read my mind!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just catching up with today's newspaper. Whereas previously - mobiles were only seized in accidents where there was a death or serious injury - it is now recommended they're seized following any motor vehicle accident. 500 people a year are estimated to be killed or seriously injured due to drivers on their phone chatting or texting etc. I can see this two ways, if some idiot has crashed into my car - the last thing i'd want is my mobile taken so I lose all my contacts until it's returned. However, I see so many drivers blatantly on their mobiles even when trying to turn at a junction (plus the secret texters) that I suspect mobile phones are responsible for a larger than accounted for amount of accidents. So I'd rather not have my phone for a few days if it cuts down on accidents and makes drivers think twice. Your thoughts ? Keep a cheap unlocked PAYG phone in the glovebox, use it occasionally , hand it over to dibble smiling sweetly. Its ok for them to take hands off the wheel and answer a radio call though via touching buttons... like whats that about " I think that suggestion speaks more about you than anything. police aren;t that gullible. And perverting the course of justice is a serious offence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just catching up with today's newspaper. Whereas previously - mobiles were only seized in accidents where there was a death or serious injury - it is now recommended they're seized following any motor vehicle accident. 500 people a year are estimated to be killed or seriously injured due to drivers on their phone chatting or texting etc. I can see this two ways, if some idiot has crashed into my car - the last thing i'd want is my mobile taken so I lose all my contacts until it's returned. However, I see so many drivers blatantly on their mobiles even when trying to turn at a junction (plus the secret texters) that I suspect mobile phones are responsible for a larger than accounted for amount of accidents. So I'd rather not have my phone for a few days if it cuts down on accidents and makes drivers think twice. Your thoughts ? Keep a cheap unlocked PAYG phone in the glovebox, use it occasionally , hand it over to dibble smiling sweetly. Its ok for them to take hands off the wheel and answer a radio call though via touching buttons... like whats that about I think that suggestion speaks more about you than anything. police aren;t that gullible. And perverting the course of justice is a serious offence" elaborate on that, btw I am not the only person to have suggested it .......... that suggestion is no worse than someone getting caught by a speed cam and getting another person to "take the points for them" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride" Take a ride in a lorry It would amaze you how many car drivers are using their phones | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride Take a ride in a lorry It would amaze you how many car drivers are using their phones " Yes we can go on and say how many smoke when driving the cig could drop in your lap | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride Take a ride in a lorry It would amaze you how many car drivers are using their phones Yes we can go on and say how many smoke when driving the cig could drop in your lap " I'm more bothered by the anti social ones (oh I smoke BTW) who flick them out of the window without using their mirrors first. Fag end in the face isn't nice!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride Take a ride in a lorry It would amaze you how manyy car drivers are using their phones Yes we can go on and say how many smoke when driving the cig could drop in your lap " Is smoking in a car illegal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its ok for them to take hands off the wheel and answer a radio call though via touching buttons... like whats that about " I think if you read the legislation it's ok to use a communications device if it's one button use. Police radios are generally up near their ears so don't need to hold the radio to their ear to listen to it, like you do with a phone. Also would you find it acceptable for a police officer to turn up to your emergency an hour late due to having to stop every time their control room tried to update them or direct them to you...I know I wouldn't... Yes I know someone will pipe up saying that the police/fire service/ambulance/ coast guard took an hour to get to their emergency.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just catching up with today's newspaper. Whereas previously - mobiles were only seized in accidents where there was a death or serious injury - it is now recommended they're seized following any motor vehicle accident. 500 people a year are estimated to be killed or seriously injured due to drivers on their phone chatting or texting etc. I can see this two ways, if some idiot has crashed into my car - the last thing i'd want is my mobile taken so I lose all my contacts until it's returned. However, I see so many drivers blatantly on their mobiles even when trying to turn at a junction (plus the secret texters) that I suspect mobile phones are responsible for a larger than accounted for amount of accidents. So I'd rather not have my phone for a few days if it cuts down on accidents and makes drivers think twice. Your thoughts ? Keep a cheap unlocked PAYG phone in the glovebox, use it occasionally , hand it over to dibble smiling sweetly. Its ok for them to take hands off the wheel and answer a radio call though via touching buttons... like whats that about I think that suggestion speaks more about you than anything. police aren;t that gullible. And perverting the course of justice is a serious offence elaborate on that, btw I am not the only person to have suggested it .......... that suggestion is no worse than someone getting caught by a speed cam and getting another person to "take the points for them"" And if caught how does that end? The police will smell a rat straight away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride" .  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride . "or just stand at the roadside and watch.. it is staggering the amount, male & female, young and old. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Each drivers phone is likely to be checked for use prior to crash timing. If you've not been using it a quick check is sufficient and you're phone shall be returned. You won't have it 'seized' if you're not the guilty party. People had to get used to wearing seatbelts but simply can't go without using their phones, why? I'd double the points penalty for basic usage." I am in agreement with you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its ok for them to take hands off the wheel and answer a radio call though via touching buttons... like whats that about I think if you read the legislation it's ok to use a communications device if it's one button use. Police radios are generally up near their ears so don't need to hold the radio to their ear to listen to it, like you do with a phone. Also would you find it acceptable for a police officer to turn up to your emergency an hour late due to having to stop every time their control room tried to update them or direct them to you...I know I wouldn't... Yes I know someone will pipe up saying that the police/fire service/ambulance/ coast guard took an hour to get to their emergency...." Still legal to use cb radio | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op" Not that I'm an expert, but I remember the advert showing a backseat passenger not wearing a seatbelt - they were propelled through to the front passenger/or driver - seriously injuring them by the looks of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride Take a ride in a lorry It would amaze you how many car drivers are using their phones " I recently signalled to a driver to get off his phone as he cut me up at a junction. I got told via hand signals what he thought of my _iewpoint !  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just catching up with today's newspaper. Whereas previously - mobiles were only seized in accidents where there was a death or serious injury - it is now recommended they're seized following any motor vehicle accident. 500 people a year are estimated to be killed or seriously injured due to drivers on their phone chatting or texting etc. you are an idiot I can see this two ways, if some idiot has crashed into my car - the last thing i'd want is my mobile taken so I lose all my contacts until it's returned. However, I see so many drivers blatantly on their mobiles even when trying to turn at a junction (plus the secret texters) that I suspect mobile phones are responsible for a larger than accounted for amount of accidents. So I'd rather not have my phone for a few days if it cuts down on accidents and makes drivers think twice. Your thoughts ? Keep a cheap unlocked PAYG phone in the glovebox, use it occasionally , hand it over to dibble smiling sweetly. Its ok for them to take hands off the wheel and answer a radio call though via touching buttons... like whats that about " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just catching up with today's newspaper. Whereas previously - mobiles were only seized in accidents where there was a death or serious injury - it is now recommended they're seized following any motor vehicle accident. 500 people a year are estimated to be killed or seriously injured due to drivers on their phone chatting or texting etc. you are an idiot I can see this two ways, if some idiot has crashed into my car - the last thing i'd want is my mobile taken so I lose all my contacts until it's returned. However, I see so many drivers blatantly on their mobiles even when trying to turn at a junction (plus the secret texters) that I suspect mobile phones are responsible for a larger than accounted for amount of accidents. So I'd rather not have my phone for a few days if it cuts down on accidents and makes drivers think twice. Your thoughts ? Keep a cheap unlocked PAYG phone in the glovebox, use it occasionally , hand it over to dibble smiling sweetly. Its ok for them to take hands off the wheel and answer a radio call though via touching buttons... like whats that about " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny how using a mobile phone while driving is a criminal offence unless your a police officer (not even sure you have to be on duty)... Guess carrying a warrant card is all it takes to remove those paricular dangers "Are you sure about that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Its ok for them to take hands off the wheel and answer a radio call though via touching buttons... like whats that about I think if you read the legislation it's ok to use a communications device if it's one button use. Police radios are generally up near their ears so don't need to hold the radio to their ear to listen to it, like you do with a phone. Also would you find it acceptable for a police officer to turn up to your emergency an hour late due to having to stop every time their control room tried to update them or direct them to you...I know I wouldn't... Yes I know someone will pipe up saying that the police/fire service/ambulance/ coast guard took an hour to get to their emergency...." And the police usually have a tad more driver training than the average guy (including LGV/PSV) so they CAN use radios while driving! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op" the emergency services who have to scrape people off the road have a different take on this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im a lollipop lady and I see this frequently when im working. I saw a lady on the last day of term last week, talking on speaker phone on her mobile. Im helpless to do anything about it, as im not allowed to use my mobile while im working, even if im not crossing the kids over the road. And trying to remember car no plates is hopeless. So, unfortunately, the persistent offenders get away with it "Buy a cheap voice recorder   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride Take a ride in a lorry It would amaze you how many car drivers are using their phones Yes we can go on and say how many smoke when driving the cig could drop in your lap " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny how using a mobile phone while driving is a criminal offence unless your a police officer (not even sure you have to be on duty)... Guess carrying a warrant card is all it takes to remove those paricular dangers
Are you sure about that? "Pretty sure... Use of mobile phones is banned under construction and use regulations but these regs allow for the use of 2 way radio devices as defined by the 1949 wireless telegraphy act which gives exemptions in law to the armed services and the police are part of the armed services (its why they get to carry weapons).  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the police usually have a tad more driver training than the average guy (including LGV/PSV) so they CAN use radios while driving!" Actually except for pursuit trained traffic officers the police have had no extra driver training for many years (spending cuts you know ). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the police usually have a tad more driver training than the average guy (including LGV/PSV) so they CAN use radios while driving! Actually except for pursuit trained traffic officers the police have had no extra driver training for many years (spending cuts you know )."I think you mean response trained drivers... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op" that anyone still doesn't understand the benefits of wearing a seatbelt is beyond me.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the police usually have a tad more driver training than the average guy (including LGV/PSV) so they CAN use radios while driving! Actually except for pursuit trained traffic officers the police have had no extra driver training for many years (spending cuts you know ).
I think you mean response trained drivers..."Sorry my bad, wrong name (but same job). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i often get alls when i'm driving. My wife as passenger answer. That would show up as phone being used and i could not prove it was not me. Guilty until proved innocent." Same here, passenger usually answers my mobile for me and on a long journey it goes through my tom-tom and becomes a hands free. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op that anyone still doesn't understand the benefits of wearing a seatbelt is beyond me.. " Well yes I clearly understand how it benefits me!!! There's no need to be facetious I was simply asking how me as a driver would affect another road user by not wearing me seatbelt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op the emergency services who have to scrape people off the road have a different take on this " This is a good point! But it feels all a bit big brother to me, surely if it doesn't affect my driving or another road user it should really be up to me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...Sound your horn at them when you can and if seeming safe. " I would advise against sounding your horn if you see someone on a mobile, its against the highway code and you could be in trouble for inappropriate use of the horn. I very much dislike people who use their mobile whilst driving, its almost as bad as drink driving in some cases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op that anyone still doesn't understand the benefits of wearing a seatbelt is beyond me.. Well yes I clearly understand how it benefits me!!! There's no need to be facetious I was simply asking how me as a driver would affect another road user by not wearing me seatbelt" Umm...They could kill you if they crash into you and it will be on their conscience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op that anyone still doesn't understand the benefits of wearing a seatbelt is beyond me.. Well yes I clearly understand how it benefits me!!! There's no need to be facetious I was simply asking how me as a driver would affect another road user by not wearing me seatbelt" make your mind up.. facetious, pa.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the police usually have a tad more driver training than the average guy (including LGV/PSV) so they CAN use radios while driving! Actually except for pursuit trained traffic officers the police have had no extra driver training for many years (spending cuts you know )."i have passed 6 yes 6 different driving tests from old class 3,2,1to H car & bike plus skid pan, fuel saving defensive driving and advanced driver, vip driving course that is like evading kidnap escape and protect the punter in the suit. Last and by no means in the company driving asser so realisticly in far more qualified than 99.99% of all coppers in cars | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...Sound your horn at them when you can and if seeming safe. I would advise against sounding your horn if you see someone on a mobile, its against the highway code and you could be in trouble for inappropriate use of the horn. I very much dislike people who use their mobile whilst driving, its almost as bad as drink driving in some cases. " I quite like driving in countries where people use the horn freely. How it's as bad as drink driving I've no idea?! What is really fucking stupid is using a mobile phone while driving. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op the emergency services who have to scrape people off the road have a different take on this This is a good point! But it feels all a bit big brother to me, surely if it doesn't affect my driving or another road user it should really be up to me" good job we have laws to protect some from themselves then.. also try asking for a quote when you state I will not be wearing my seat belt, ever.. good luck.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride" Very true. Drivers using mobiles REALLY grinds my gears. We are told that it is as dangerous as drinking and driving yet the penalties for these two offences are very different. If the Government wants to clamp down on mobile use behind the wheel then they need to ban anyone caught doing so in the same way as they would if they were over the drink drive limit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the police usually have a tad more driver training than the average guy (including LGV/PSV) so they CAN use radios while driving! Actually except for pursuit trained traffic officers the police have had no extra driver training for many years (spending cuts you know ).
i have passed 6 yes 6 different driving tests from old class 3,2,1to H car & bike plus skid pan, fuel saving defensive driving and advanced driver, vip driving course that is like evading kidnap escape and protect the punter in the suit. Last and by no means in the company driving asser so realisticly in far more qualified than 99.99% of all coppers in cars"To drive a lorry. Hardly qualifies you for a pursuit in a car does it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the police usually have a tad more driver training than the average guy (including LGV/PSV) so they CAN use radios while driving! Actually except for pursuit trained traffic officers the police have had no extra driver training for many years (spending cuts you know ).
i have passed 6 yes 6 different driving tests from old class 3,2,1to H car & bike plus skid pan, fuel saving defensive driving and advanced driver, vip driving course that is like evading kidnap escape and protect the punter in the suit. Last and by no means in the company driving asser so realisticly in far more qualified than 99.99% of all coppers in cars"no your not.. its a totally different style of driving, did most of those course and more but they only give you an insight into driving under blue light conditions let alone police pursuit level.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op the emergency services who have to scrape people off the road have a different take on this This is a good point! But it feels all a bit big brother to me, surely if it doesn't affect my driving or another road user it should really be up to me good job we have laws to protect some from themselves then.. also try asking for a quote when you state I will not be wearing my seat belt, ever.. good luck..- " What do you mean make your mind up?? I havent deviated from my original question have I?? That's my point I don't need protecting from myself!! But no wonder we're producing a generation of kids devoid of any common sense, they practically have a hand book on life from our government!! Also I never said I didn't wear one did I? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the police usually have a tad more driver training than the average guy (including LGV/PSV) so they CAN use radios while driving! Actually except for pursuit trained traffic officers the police have had no extra driver training for many years (spending cuts you know ).
i have passed 6 yes 6 different driving tests from old class 3,2,1to H car & bike plus skid pan, fuel saving defensive driving and advanced driver, vip driving course that is like evading kidnap escape and protect the punter in the suit. Last and by no means in the company driving asser so realisticly in far more qualified than 99.99% of all coppers in cars
To drive a lorry. Hardly qualifies you for a pursuit in a car does it?"i was in a VIP close protection team in the army in northern Ireland also had same role for the UN in Bosnia.. And in Berlin.. It was a lifetime ago but yeah i wasn't always just a truck driver | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op the emergency services who have to scrape people off the road have a different take on this This is a good point! But it feels all a bit big brother to me, surely if it doesn't affect my driving or another road user it should really be up to me good job we have laws to protect some from themselves then.. also try asking for a quote when you state I will not be wearing my seat belt, ever.. good luck..- What do you mean make your mind up?? I havent deviated from my original question have I?? That's my point I don't need protecting from myself!! But no wonder we're producing a generation of kids devoid of any common sense, they practically have a hand book on life from our government!! Also I never said I didn't wear one did I?" read your posts.. your point about kids and common sense is not relevant, its totally coomon sense to wear one so whu does it need enforcement under statute..? because some lack common sense and will by bad behaviour pass that on to theirs and others kids.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op the emergency services who have to scrape people off the road have a different take on this This is a good point! But it feels all a bit big brother to me, surely if it doesn't affect my driving or another road user it should really be up to me good job we have laws to protect some from themselves then.. also try asking for a quote when you state I will not be wearing my seat belt, ever.. good luck..- What do you mean make your mind up?? I havent deviated from my original question have I?? That's my point I don't need protecting from myself!! But no wonder we're producing a generation of kids devoid of any common sense, they practically have a hand book on life from our government!! Also I never said I didn't wear one did I? read your posts.. your point about kids and common sense is not relevant, its totally coomon sense to wear one so whu does it need enforcement under statute..? because some lack common sense and will by bad behaviour pass that on to theirs and others kids.." I have read my posts, not once did I 'change my mind'. Other people and their children aren't my concern!! They're not in the car with me!! So there's a law to say I can't jump off a cliff in case someone follows me?!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op the emergency services who have to scrape people off the road have a different take on this This is a good point! But it feels all a bit big brother to me, surely if it doesn't affect my driving or another road user it should really be up to me good job we have laws to protect some from themselves then.. also try asking for a quote when you state I will not be wearing my seat belt, ever.. good luck..- What do you mean make your mind up?? I havent deviated from my original question have I?? That's my point I don't need protecting from myself!! But no wonder we're producing a generation of kids devoid of any common sense, they practically have a hand book on life from our government!! Also I never said I didn't wear one did I? read your posts.. your point about kids and common sense is not relevant, its totally coomon sense to wear one so whu does it need enforcement under statute..? because some lack common sense and will by bad behaviour pass that on to theirs and others kids.. I have read my posts, not once did I 'change my mind'. Other people and their children aren't my concern!! They're not in the car with me!! So there's a law to say I can't jump off a cliff in case someone follows me?!!" mental health act for your own safety perhaps.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op the emergency services who have to scrape people off the road have a different take on this This is a good point! But it feels all a bit big brother to me, surely if it doesn't affect my driving or another road user it should really be up to me good job we have laws to protect some from themselves then.. also try asking for a quote when you state I will not be wearing my seat belt, ever.. good luck..- What do you mean make your mind up?? I havent deviated from my original question have I?? That's my point I don't need protecting from myself!! But no wonder we're producing a generation of kids devoid of any common sense, they practically have a hand book on life from our government!! Also I never said I didn't wear one did I? read your posts.. your point about kids and common sense is not relevant, its totally coomon sense to wear one so whu does it need enforcement under statute..? because some lack common sense and will by bad behaviour pass that on to theirs and others kids.. I have read my posts, not once did I 'change my mind'. Other people and their children aren't my concern!! They're not in the car with me!! So there's a law to say I can't jump off a cliff in case someone follows me?!! mental health act for your own safety perhaps.." Is it cooler up there on your high horse? I was just asking a question. There really isn't any need to get nasty about it. You questioning my mental health when I'm making a relevant point says more about you than it does about me. Goodnight | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op the emergency services who have to scrape people off the road have a different take on this This is a good point! But it feels all a bit big brother to me, surely if it doesn't affect my driving or another road user it should really be up to me good job we have laws to protect some from themselves then.. also try asking for a quote when you state I will not be wearing my seat belt, ever.. good luck..- What do you mean make your mind up?? I havent deviated from my original question have I?? That's my point I don't need protecting from myself!! But no wonder we're producing a generation of kids devoid of any common sense, they practically have a hand book on life from our government!! Also I never said I didn't wear one did I? read your posts.. your point about kids and common sense is not relevant, its totally coomon sense to wear one so whu does it need enforcement under statute..? because some lack common sense and will by bad behaviour pass that on to theirs and others kids.. I have read my posts, not once did I 'change my mind'. Other people and their children aren't my concern!! They're not in the car with me!! So there's a law to say I can't jump off a cliff in case someone follows me?!! mental health act for your own safety perhaps.. Is it cooler up there on your high horse? I was just asking a question. There really isn't any need to get nasty about it. You questioning my mental health when I'm making a relevant point says more about you than it does about me. Goodnight "wasn't getting 'nasty' and happy to apologise if you didn't understand that the relevant section of the mental health act is used daily to prevent people who are in the opinion of the person exercising the law about to do harm to themselves.. ie. jumping off a cliff.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op Not that I'm an expert, but I remember the advert showing a backseat passenger not wearing a seatbelt - they were propelled through to the front passenger/or driver - seriously injuring them by the looks of it. "I was actually thinking down the same lines.. But you've been a litte politer than me  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just catching up with today's newspaper. Whereas previously - mobiles were only seized in accidents where there was a death or serious injury - it is now recommended they're seized following any motor vehicle accident. 500 people a year are estimated to be killed or seriously injured due to drivers on their phone chatting or texting etc. I can see this two ways, if some idiot has crashed into my car - the last thing i'd want is my mobile taken so I lose all my contacts until it's returned. However, I see so many drivers blatantly on their mobiles even when trying to turn at a junction (plus the secret texters) that I suspect mobile phones are responsible for a larger than accounted for amount of accidents. So I'd rather not have my phone for a few days if it cuts down on accidents and makes drivers think twice. Your thoughts ? " Hope they like porn.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the police usually have a tad more driver training than the average guy (including LGV/PSV) so they CAN use radios while driving! Actually except for pursuit trained traffic officers the police have had no extra driver training for many years (spending cuts you know ).
i have passed 6 yes 6 different driving tests from old class 3,2,1to H car & bike plus skid pan, fuel saving defensive driving and advanced driver, vip driving course that is like evading kidnap escape and protect the punter in the suit. Last and by no means in the company driving asser so realisticly in far more qualified than 99.99% of all coppers in cars
To drive a lorry. Hardly qualifies you for a pursuit in a car does it?
i was in a VIP close protection team in the army in northern Ireland also had same role for the UN in Bosnia.. And in Berlin.. It was a lifetime ago but yeah i wasn't always just a truck driver "Also defensive driving and close protection trained (M) so yes I agree that the anti ambush / hi speed convoy / escape and protection /response driving (especially when having to give a running commentary on what you are doing / other road users/potential hazards does make you as good if not better than the majority of of ordinary police drivers. Also my original point of having a cheap PAYG phone was to save my smartphone being taken away if I am not the guilty party. Why should I be without contacts, diary dates etc while my phone is gathering dust in some police evidence room (ducks down and waits for verbal bullets to come flying) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Welly wearer how does it feel being scraped off the window screen after a accident.I didn't think people like you existed any more.Seatbelt are there for your safety in an accident." Once again I didn't say I didn't wear mine I was just asking a question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I've never really understood the seatbelt thing, how am I affecting anyone else by not wearing a seatbelt? Sorry for going off topic a bit op the emergency services who have to scrape people off the road have a different take on this This is a good point! But it feels all a bit big brother to me, surely if it doesn't affect my driving or another road user it should really be up to me good job we have laws to protect some from themselves then.. also try asking for a quote when you state I will not be wearing my seat belt, ever.. good luck..- What do you mean make your mind up?? I havent deviated from my original question have I?? That's my point I don't need protecting from myself!! But no wonder we're producing a generation of kids devoid of any common sense, they practically have a hand book on life from our government!! Also I never said I didn't wear one did I? read your posts.. your point about kids and common sense is not relevant, its totally coomon sense to wear one so whu does it need enforcement under statute..? because some lack common sense and will by bad behaviour pass that on to theirs and others kids.. I have read my posts, not once did I 'change my mind'. Other people and their children aren't my concern!! They're not in the car with me!! So there's a law to say I can't jump off a cliff in case someone follows me?!! mental health act for your own safety perhaps.. Is it cooler up there on your high horse? I was just asking a question. There really isn't any need to get nasty about it. You questioning my mental health when I'm making a relevant point says more about you than it does about me. Goodnight
wasn't getting 'nasty' and happy to apologise if you didn't understand that the relevant section of the mental health act is used daily to prevent people who are in the opinion of the person exercising the law about to do harm to themselves..
ie. jumping off a cliff..
"You've completely over reacted about me asking a question. I never said I don't wear a seat belt. I never said it was safe not too. I never said I didn't understand what would probably happen in a crash if I wasn't wearing one. I only asked what affect it had on other road users if I chose not to wear one. After insinuating I was stupid for not wearing a seatbelt (something I never said) and telling me I needed saving from myself, you eventually answer my question. I don't think be a bad influence on others is should be a punishable offence, it's other people's choice what they do and how they behave. So no, if I chose not to wear a seat belt it wouldn't affect any other road users.I agree with someone that posted further up, I think it should be down to the driver to decide especially if they are the only one in the car. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Welly wearer how does it feel being scraped off the window screen after a accident.I didn't think people like you existed any more.Seatbelt are there for your safety in an accident." you don't get scraped off the windscreen if hit it inside heading out.. The screen WILL give you will go thru it... Been thru 2.. 1 when i was driving n a fucking icecream van pulled out of a junction i hit him bang 2nd a mate was driving home from a gig @ albert hall he fell asleep hit central resivation @ like 2am again thru wind screen i got last laugh.. Not even a scratch he broke leg and wrist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny how using a mobile phone while driving is a criminal offence unless your a police officer (not even sure you have to be on duty)... Guess carrying a warrant card is all it takes to remove those paricular dangers
Are you sure about that? "I remember a case where an off-duty female police special was involved in a fatal accident. She had her mobile phone on loud speaker and technically could not be charged for phone use. Not sure of the final outcome but I know the police were quite embarrassed about it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe it should be optional to 18 and above i dont wear mine all the time " I don't understand why you don't want to wear it. Do you think you'll be less injured in a crash when not wearing one? Have you been involved in or seen a high speed crash where no seat belts were worn? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride Take a ride in a lorry It would amaze you how manyy car drivers are using their phones Yes we can go on and say how many smoke when driving the cig could drop in your lap Is smoking in a car illegal? " No but as far as I understand it, the flicking it out the window is littering and illegal under section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This would make it punishable by a small fixed fine but like so many thing is rarely pursued but our authorities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just catching up with today's newspaper. Whereas previously - mobiles were only seized in accidents where there was a death or serious injury - it is now recommended they're seized following any motor vehicle accident. 500 people a year are estimated to be killed or seriously injured due to drivers on their phone chatting or texting etc. I can see this two ways, if some idiot has crashed into my car - the last thing i'd want is my mobile taken so I lose all my contacts until it's returned. However, I see so many drivers blatantly on their mobiles even when trying to turn at a junction (plus the secret texters) that I suspect mobile phones are responsible for a larger than accounted for amount of accidents. So I'd rather not have my phone for a few days if it cuts down on accidents and makes drivers think twice. Your thoughts ? " I think it's a good idea | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just catching up with today's newspaper. Whereas previously - mobiles were only seized in accidents where there was a death or serious injury - it is now recommended they're seized following any motor vehicle accident. 500 people a year are estimated to be killed or seriously injured due to drivers on their phone chatting or texting etc. I can see this two ways, if some idiot has crashed into my car - the last thing i'd want is my mobile taken so I lose all my contacts until it's returned. However, I see so many drivers blatantly on their mobiles even when trying to turn at a junction (plus the secret texters) that I suspect mobile phones are responsible for a larger than accounted for amount of accidents. So I'd rather not have my phone for a few days if it cuts down on accidents and makes drivers think twice. Your thoughts ? Keep a cheap unlocked PAYG phone in the glovebox, use it occasionally , hand it over to dibble smiling sweetly. Its ok for them to take hands off the wheel and answer a radio call though via touching buttons... like whats that about I think that suggestion speaks more about you than anything. police aren;t that gullible. And perverting the course of justice is a serious offence elaborate on that, btw I am not the only person to have suggested it .......... that suggestion is no worse than someone getting caught by a speed cam and getting another person to "take the points for them" And if caught how does that end? The police will smell a rat straight away." That suggestion is no worse than someone taking the points? Jeeze. The reason people. (Including politicians) go to prison for this is because of perverting the course of justice. If you mess with the course of justice and they let that go they are making a mockery of the system. Hence why they treat it so seriously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride Take a ride in a lorry It would amaze you how many car drivers are using their phones " How would beng a lorry driver help you notice drivers using their phones while driving, when some lorry driver are often watching their tv while driving | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Each drivers phone is likely to be checked for use prior to crash timing. If you've not been using it a quick check is sufficient and you're phone shall be returned. You won't have it 'seized' if you're not the guilty party. People had to get used to wearing seatbelts but simply can't go without using their phones, why? I'd double the points penalty for basic usage. I am in agreement with you" Never mine all this crap about double point, they have had enough warnings about using a phone while driving. A 28 day ban should be the order of the day,you watch how many would stop then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride Very true. Drivers using mobiles REALLY grinds my gears. We are told that it is as dangerous as drinking and driving yet the penalties for these two offences are very different. If the Government wants to clamp down on mobile use behind the wheel then they need to ban anyone caught doing so in the same way as they would if they were over the drink drive limit." Grinds you gears, think you need a new clutch | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Each drivers phone is likely to be checked for use prior to crash timing. If you've not been using it a quick check is sufficient and you're phone shall be returned. You won't have it 'seized' if you're not the guilty party. People had to get used to wearing seatbelts but simply can't go without using their phones, why? I'd double the points penalty for basic usage. I am in agreement with you Never mine all this crap about double point, they have had enough warnings about using a phone while driving. A 28 day ban should be the order of the day,you watch how many would stop then" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the police usually have a tad more driver training than the average guy (including LGV/PSV) so they CAN use radios while driving! Actually except for pursuit trained traffic officers the police have had no extra driver training for many years (spending cuts you know ).
i have passed 6 yes 6 different driving tests from old class 3,2,1to H car & bike plus skid pan, fuel saving defensive driving and advanced driver, vip driving course that is like evading kidnap escape and protect the punter in the suit. Last and by no means in the company driving asser so realisticly in far more qualified than 99.99% of all coppers in cars
To drive a lorry. Hardly qualifies you for a pursuit in a car does it?
i was in a VIP close protection team in the army in northern Ireland also had same role for the UN in Bosnia.. And in Berlin.. It was a lifetime ago but yeah i wasn't always just a truck driver "Close protection in NI for whom ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've completely over reacted about me asking a question. I never said I don't wear a seat belt. I never said it was safe not too. I never said I didn't understand what would probably happen in a crash if I wasn't wearing one. I only asked what affect it had on other road users if I chose not to wear one. After insinuating I was stupid for not wearing a seatbelt (something I never said) and telling me I needed saving from myself, you eventually answer my question. I don't think be a bad influence on others is should be a punishable offence, it's other people's choice what they do and how they behave. So no, if I chose not to wear a seat belt it wouldn't affect any other road users.I agree with someone that posted further up, I think it should be down to the driver to decide especially if they are the only one in the car." any over reaction on my part is probably down to literally picking up the pieces of people who didn't wear seat belts, they wont need to again where they ended up.. again happy to apologise if your perception is that I was trying to make you feel stupid, it wasn't my intent.. what I will say is that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt is totally stupid and in doing so is showing an utter lack of any thought toward those who love them.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've completely over reacted about me asking a question. I never said I don't wear a seat belt. I never said it was safe not too. I never said I didn't understand what would probably happen in a crash if I wasn't wearing one. I only asked what affect it had on other road users if I chose not to wear one. After insinuating I was stupid for not wearing a seatbelt (something I never said) and telling me I needed saving from myself, you eventually answer my question. I don't think be a bad influence on others is should be a punishable offence, it's other people's choice what they do and how they behave. So no, if I chose not to wear a seat belt it wouldn't affect any other road users.I agree with someone that posted further up, I think it should be down to the driver to decide especially if they are the only one in the car. any over reaction on my part is probably down to literally picking up the pieces of people who didn't wear seat belts, they wont need to again where they ended up.. again happy to apologise if your perception is that I was trying to make you feel stupid, it wasn't my intent.. what I will say is that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt is totally stupid and in doing so is showing an utter lack of any thought toward those who love them.. " And what if there isn't anyone who loves them or will miss them?? It's really not up to you or anybody else!! And I'm presuming it's your line of work you come across these scenes?? Thats your choice, nobody else's | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've completely over reacted about me asking a question. I never said I don't wear a seat belt. I never said it was safe not too. I never said I didn't understand what would probably happen in a crash if I wasn't wearing one. I only asked what affect it had on other road users if I chose not to wear one. After insinuating I was stupid for not wearing a seatbelt (something I never said) and telling me I needed saving from myself, you eventually answer my question. I don't think be a bad influence on others is should be a punishable offence, it's other people's choice what they do and how they behave. So no, if I chose not to wear a seat belt it wouldn't affect any other road users.I agree with someone that posted further up, I think it should be down to the driver to decide especially if they are the only one in the car. any over reaction on my part is probably down to literally picking up the pieces of people who didn't wear seat belts, they wont need to again where they ended up.. again happy to apologise if your perception is that I was trying to make you feel stupid, it wasn't my intent.. what I will say is that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt is totally stupid and in doing so is showing an utter lack of any thought toward those who love them.. " I'm with you on this sweetie, the I'm ok jack attitude, springs to mind... Spare a thought for the aftermath... And the poor sods that, have to scrape you off the road, speak to your relatives.. Look after to you, and your nonchalant attitude...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its an interesting thread, the seatbelt thing is a no brainer plain and simple. As for phone use,even full hands free with voice dialling is a distraction.i know i have to use the phone (fully hands free) as my job would be impossible without. I have passed many assesments through my driving history , drive 40k a year , am iam advanced , passed a class 1 course , am also an Ards motorsport instructor. phones are one of the worst distraction however the level of attention paid to whats going on around the by drivers not distracted by something else is stunning. Get someone to drive a few miles and comment whats going on around them would stun you , ok doing it is an art but it does highlight what people see and what they are oblivious too .. just my musings on the matter." Sorry but I'm not sure there is any job,well part from police, where a mobile phone can not be done without while your driving | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it hard to understand why the police would want phones? they can check records from phone companies but there may be another reason, If you surrender your phone they might look where you've been browsing, texting and pictures you have. This might be embarrassing- or illegal? " Don't think under the new legislation that a car accident would be justifiable cause to give access to your phone records, what was common practice previously has been ruled illegal and the new legislation just rushed through may make it more difficult to access peoples phone records. I am also unsure that with the exception of actually making and posting a comment with a time stamp if Internet access is traceable as to you actually being an active user at the time of an accident. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride Take a ride in a lorry It would amaze you how manyy car drivers are using their phones Yes we can go on and say how many smoke when driving the cig could drop in your lap Is smoking in a car illegal? " dont go giving them ideas | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the police usually have a tad more driver training than the average guy (including LGV/PSV) so they CAN use radios while driving! Actually except for pursuit trained traffic officers the police have had no extra driver training for many years (spending cuts you know ).
i have passed 6 yes 6 different driving tests from old class 3,2,1to H car & bike plus skid pan, fuel saving defensive driving and advanced driver, vip driving course that is like evading kidnap escape and protect the punter in the suit. Last and by no means in the company driving asser so realisticly in far more qualified than 99.99% of all coppers in cars
To drive a lorry. Hardly qualifies you for a pursuit in a car does it?
i was in a VIP close protection team in the army in northern Ireland also had same role for the UN in Bosnia.. And in Berlin.. It was a lifetime ago but yeah i wasn't always just a truck driver "Bet those were interesting times. While it makes you more than qualified than me, it still doesn't qualify you. Thing is everybody on the road thinks their the best driver, regardless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride Take a ride in a lorry It would amaze you how manyy car drivers are using their phones Yes we can go on and say how many smoke when driving the cig could drop in your lap Is smoking in a car illegal? dont go giving them ideas" It is illegal to smoke in company vehicles or cars | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've completely over reacted about me asking a question. I never said I don't wear a seat belt. I never said it was safe not too. I never said I didn't understand what would probably happen in a crash if I wasn't wearing one. I only asked what affect it had on other road users if I chose not to wear one. After insinuating I was stupid for not wearing a seatbelt (something I never said) and telling me I needed saving from myself, you eventually answer my question. I don't think be a bad influence on others is should be a punishable offence, it's other people's choice what they do and how they behave. So no, if I chose not to wear a seat belt it wouldn't affect any other road users.I agree with someone that posted further up, I think it should be down to the driver to decide especially if they are the only one in the car. any over reaction on my part is probably down to literally picking up the pieces of people who didn't wear seat belts, they wont need to again where they ended up.. again happy to apologise if your perception is that I was trying to make you feel stupid, it wasn't my intent.. what I will say is that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt is totally stupid and in doing so is showing an utter lack of any thought toward those who love them.. I'm with you on this sweetie, the I'm ok jack attitude, springs to mind... Spare a thought for the aftermath... And the poor sods that, have to scrape you off the road, speak to your relatives.. Look after to you, and your nonchalant attitude... "Ok, last time I'm going to say it. I didn't say I don't wear a seat belt, but I do think it should be up to the indivdual to decide. Dear God can nobody read?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've completely over reacted about me asking a question. I never said I don't wear a seat belt. I never said it was safe not too. I never said I didn't understand what would probably happen in a crash if I wasn't wearing one. I only asked what affect it had on other road users if I chose not to wear one. After insinuating I was stupid for not wearing a seatbelt (something I never said) and telling me I needed saving from myself, you eventually answer my question. I don't think be a bad influence on others is should be a punishable offence, it's other people's choice what they do and how they behave. So no, if I chose not to wear a seat belt it wouldn't affect any other road users.I agree with someone that posted further up, I think it should be down to the driver to decide especially if they are the only one in the car. any over reaction on my part is probably down to literally picking up the pieces of people who didn't wear seat belts, they wont need to again where they ended up.. again happy to apologise if your perception is that I was trying to make you feel stupid, it wasn't my intent.. what I will say is that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt is totally stupid and in doing so is showing an utter lack of any thought toward those who love them.. And what if there isn't anyone who loves them or will miss them?? It's really not up to you or anybody else!! And I'm presuming it's your line of work you come across these scenes?? Thats your choice, nobody else's " so taking your logic to another area, you would walk past a young person about to throw themselves off a bridge or a person about to step in front of a train..? either could fit your thinking so its ok to do that yes..? am retired now but if you want to can graphically describe to you several incidents which stay in the memory, despite which I would do the same job again were I starting out as that was a part off that role.. personally speaking i'm fine with that aspect but others don't fare so well, same as with some of our forces personnel.. the consequences of those who do as they like against all common sense will always have an impact.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've completely over reacted about me asking a question. I never said I don't wear a seat belt. I never said it was safe not too. I never said I didn't understand what would probably happen in a crash if I wasn't wearing one. I only asked what affect it had on other road users if I chose not to wear one. After insinuating I was stupid for not wearing a seatbelt (something I never said) and telling me I needed saving from myself, you eventually answer my question. I don't think be a bad influence on others is should be a punishable offence, it's other people's choice what they do and how they behave. So no, if I chose not to wear a seat belt it wouldn't affect any other road users.I agree with someone that posted further up, I think it should be down to the driver to decide especially if they are the only one in the car. any over reaction on my part is probably down to literally picking up the pieces of people who didn't wear seat belts, they wont need to again where they ended up.. again happy to apologise if your perception is that I was trying to make you feel stupid, it wasn't my intent.. what I will say is that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt is totally stupid and in doing so is showing an utter lack of any thought toward those who love them.. I'm with you on this sweetie, the I'm ok jack attitude, springs to mind... Spare a thought for the aftermath... And the poor sods that, have to scrape you off the road, speak to your relatives.. Look after to you, and your nonchalant attitude...
Ok, last time I'm going to say it. I didn't say I don't wear a seat belt, but I do think it should be up to the indivdual to decide. Dear God can nobody read??"Your breaking up, say again over | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it's their right to do as they like!! As long as its not going to affect anyone else, I don't want some suit telling me how to live my life!! Someone jumping off a bridge is probably not all the time though someone asking for help. Someone not wearing a seatbelt is just someone who doesn't want to wear a seatbelt!!" It's Your Right, where you been hiding for th last 20 years, we have lost all then rights long ago | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride Take a ride in a lorry It would amaze you how many car drivers are using their phones How would beng a lorry driver help you notice drivers using their phones while driving, when some lorry driver are often watching their tv while driving "wrong.. you will find its dvds not tv cant get a decent signal when driving haha.. Joking, its not a contest to see who is the worst in the drivers seat is it.. Or is it?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its an interesting thread, the seatbelt thing is a no brainer plain and simple. As for phone use,even full hands free with voice dialling is a distraction.i know i have to use the phone (fully hands free) as my job would be impossible without. I have passed many assesments through my driving history , drive 40k a year , am iam advanced , passed a class 1 course , am also an Ards motorsport instructor. phones are one of the worst distraction however the level of attention paid to whats going on around the by drivers not distracted by something else is stunning. Get someone to drive a few miles and comment whats going on around them would stun you , ok doing it is an art but it does highlight what people see and what they are oblivious too .. just my musings on the matter. Sorry but I'm not sure there is any job,well part from police, where a mobile phone can not be done without while your driving " well i can assure you there are jobs. and those people will carry out said job quite legally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride Very true. Drivers using mobiles REALLY grinds my gears. We are told that it is as dangerous as drinking and driving yet the penalties for these two offences are very different. If the Government wants to clamp down on mobile use behind the wheel then they need to ban anyone caught doing so in the same way as they would if they were over the drink drive limit. Grinds you gears, think you need a new clutch "Bugger that. Just spent over £600 on new parts for the bike as it is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think that's not only a breach of privacy, it's pretty oppressive. Considering it's not rocket science figuring out whose fault a crash was, you could easily suggest there's another agenda for them wanting your phones. Seems like every crackpot idea lately is to just say "fuck your rights"" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think that's not only a breach of privacy, it's pretty oppressive. Considering it's not rocket science figuring out whose fault a crash was, you could easily suggest there's another agenda for them wanting your phones. Seems like every crackpot idea lately is to just say "fuck your rights" "Agreed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think that's not only a breach of privacy, it's pretty oppressive. Considering it's not rocket science figuring out whose fault a crash was, you could easily suggest there's another agenda for them wanting your phones. Seems like every crackpot idea lately is to just say "fuck your rights"" It can sometimes be very difficult to know who's fault a crash was. I do agree though that there is far too much of the attitude that of you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from constant monitoring | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"something which nobody has mentioned yet. The majority of smart phones now contain GPS & various g sensors. With the right forensic examination your phone could produce a picture of what was happening in your vehicle in the minutes leading up to the accident. " There is some sense in that it would be interesting if it in the future becomes mandatory to have some monitoring equipment in your car for this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"something which nobody has mentioned yet. The majority of smart phones now contain GPS & various g sensors. With the right forensic examination your phone could produce a picture of what was happening in your vehicle in the minutes leading up to the accident. " Don't think that would be very useful, many don't actually have real GPS they triangulate accurate to about 150yds, but they don't store that, so all accidents would happen in the vicinity of the lab where they did the analysis... there would be speed cameras every 10 foot of the police station car park
Bottom line is the actual process called for by ONE police chief is to check the phones and if a call or text happened around the time of the accident then take that phone as evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Speaking as someone with recent experience of this problem, (hit from behind by someone driving and texting) am on holiday in Cornwall and car is damaged because guy behind wasn't paying attention to the car in front but his mobile, so he drove into my car and claimed his foot slipped off the clutch. Before next weekend I have to get car sorted out and make sure it's safe to drive 350 miles back home. He hit the tow bar so the mounts have to be checked and body measured to ensure is not twisted, police were not interested as no-one was injured, if they could have checked his phone they would have seen he was liable and made things a lot easier. Now spending the next 3 days reliant on public transport whilst main agent sorts out the car and makes a decision." Hit from behind it's clear case doesn't matter if foot slipped off clutch or he was texting, get onto insurance get a hire car for your holiday, and have yours recovered if not safe to drive home... simples | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"something which nobody has mentioned yet. The majority of smart phones now contain GPS & various g sensors. With the right forensic examination your phone could produce a picture of what was happening in your vehicle in the minutes leading up to the accident. Don't think that would be very useful, many don't actually have real GPS they triangulate accurate to about 150yds, but they don't store that, so all accidents would happen in the vicinity of the lab where they did the analysis... there would be speed cameras every 10 foot of the police station car park
Bottom line is the actual process called for by ONE police chief is to check the phones and if a call or text happened around the time of the accident then take that phone as evidence. "Have you ever rooted an android or iPhone & dug around in the files you can't see as a "normal user" ? And not just smartphones a lot of people now have cars with "proper" GPS (either built in or standalone units. The Garmin I use on my bike stores a surprising amount of history! In theory the Police could examine these as well following an accident. It's simply an extension of the sort of forensic examination they currently carry out following a fatal crash and in the case of a fatality probably wouldn't even require a change in legislation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've completely over reacted about me asking a question. I never said I don't wear a seat belt. I never said it was safe not too. I never said I didn't understand what would probably happen in a crash if I wasn't wearing one. I only asked what affect it had on other road users if I chose not to wear one. After insinuating I was stupid for not wearing a seatbelt (something I never said) and telling me I needed saving from myself, you eventually answer my question. I don't think be a bad influence on others is should be a punishable offence, it's other people's choice what they do and how they behave. So no, if I chose not to wear a seat belt it wouldn't affect any other road users.I agree with someone that posted further up, I think it should be down to the driver to decide especially if they are the only one in the car. any over reaction on my part is probably down to literally picking up the pieces of people who didn't wear seat belts, they wont need to again where they ended up.. again happy to apologise if your perception is that I was trying to make you feel stupid, it wasn't my intent.. what I will say is that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt is totally stupid and in doing so is showing an utter lack of any thought toward those who love them.. I'm with you on this sweetie, the I'm ok jack attitude, springs to mind... Spare a thought for the aftermath... And the poor sods that, have to scrape you off the road, speak to your relatives.. Look after to you, and your nonchalant attitude...
Ok, last time I'm going to say it. I didn't say I don't wear a seat belt, but I do think it should be up to the indivdual to decide. Dear God can nobody read??"it has been proven that in an accident by not wearing a seatbelt you can seriously injure/kill yourself or others involved in the accident, including those not in the same car as you, that is why it is not a choice to wear a seatbelt but a law, for yours and others safety, your question was answered further up but you have kept going on about it, how someone doesnt understand this in this day and age is quite alarming really, especially as your a driver. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've completely over reacted about me asking a question. I never said I don't wear a seat belt. I never said it was safe not too. I never said I didn't understand what would probably happen in a crash if I wasn't wearing one. I only asked what affect it had on other road users if I chose not to wear one. After insinuating I was stupid for not wearing a seatbelt (something I never said) and telling me I needed saving from myself, you eventually answer my question. I don't think be a bad influence on others is should be a punishable offence, it's other people's choice what they do and how they behave. So no, if I chose not to wear a seat belt it wouldn't affect any other road users.I agree with someone that posted further up, I think it should be down to the driver to decide especially if they are the only one in the car. any over reaction on my part is probably down to literally picking up the pieces of people who didn't wear seat belts, they wont need to again where they ended up.. again happy to apologise if your perception is that I was trying to make you feel stupid, it wasn't my intent.. what I will say is that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt is totally stupid and in doing so is showing an utter lack of any thought toward those who love them.. I'm with you on this sweetie, the I'm ok jack attitude, springs to mind... Spare a thought for the aftermath... And the poor sods that, have to scrape you off the road, speak to your relatives.. Look after to you, and your nonchalant attitude...
Ok, last time I'm going to say it. I didn't say I don't wear a seat belt, but I do think it should be up to the indivdual to decide. Dear God can nobody read??
it has been proven that in an accident by not wearing a seatbelt you can seriously injure/kill yourself or others involved in the accident, including those not in the same car as you, that is why it is not a choice to wear a seatbelt but a law, for yours and others safety, your question was answered further up but you have kept going on about it, how someone doesnt understand this in this day and age is quite alarming really, especially as your a driver."Right, not one person said that I could injure someone in a separate car, Im guessing those occurrences are rare but fair enough, thank you for answering my question even if you did feel the need to have a dig at the end! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've completely over reacted about me asking a question. I never said I don't wear a seat belt. I never said it was safe not too. I never said I didn't understand what would probably happen in a crash if I wasn't wearing one. I only asked what affect it had on other road users if I chose not to wear one. After insinuating I was stupid for not wearing a seatbelt (something I never said) and telling me I needed saving from myself, you eventually answer my question. I don't think be a bad influence on others is should be a punishable offence, it's other people's choice what they do and how they behave. So no, if I chose not to wear a seat belt it wouldn't affect any other road users.I agree with someone that posted further up, I think it should be down to the driver to decide especially if they are the only one in the car. any over reaction on my part is probably down to literally picking up the pieces of people who didn't wear seat belts, they wont need to again where they ended up.. again happy to apologise if your perception is that I was trying to make you feel stupid, it wasn't my intent.. what I will say is that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt is totally stupid and in doing so is showing an utter lack of any thought toward those who love them.. I'm with you on this sweetie, the I'm ok jack attitude, springs to mind... Spare a thought for the aftermath... And the poor sods that, have to scrape you off the road, speak to your relatives.. Look after to you, and your nonchalant attitude...
Ok, last time I'm going to say it. I didn't say I don't wear a seat belt, but I do think it should be up to the indivdual to decide. Dear God can nobody read??
it has been proven that in an accident by not wearing a seatbelt you can seriously injure/kill yourself or others involved in the accident, including those not in the same car as you, that is why it is not a choice to wear a seatbelt but a law, for yours and others safety, your question was answered further up but you have kept going on about it, how someone doesnt understand this in this day and age is quite alarming really, especially as your a driver."I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents, spectators of rally driving etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've completely over reacted about me asking a question. I never said I don't wear a seat belt. I never said it was safe not too. I never said I didn't understand what would probably happen in a crash if I wasn't wearing one. I only asked what affect it had on other road users if I chose not to wear one. After insinuating I was stupid for not wearing a seatbelt (something I never said) and telling me I needed saving from myself, you eventually answer my question. I don't think be a bad influence on others is should be a punishable offence, it's other people's choice what they do and how they behave. So no, if I chose not to wear a seat belt it wouldn't affect any other road users.I agree with someone that posted further up, I think it should be down to the driver to decide especially if they are the only one in the car. any over reaction on my part is probably down to literally picking up the pieces of people who didn't wear seat belts, they wont need to again where they ended up.. again happy to apologise if your perception is that I was trying to make you feel stupid, it wasn't my intent.. what I will say is that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt is totally stupid and in doing so is showing an utter lack of any thought toward those who love them.. I'm with you on this sweetie, the I'm ok jack attitude, springs to mind... Spare a thought for the aftermath... And the poor sods that, have to scrape you off the road, speak to your relatives.. Look after to you, and your nonchalant attitude...
Ok, last time I'm going to say it. I didn't say I don't wear a seat belt, but I do think it should be up to the indivdual to decide. Dear God can nobody read??
it has been proven that in an accident by not wearing a seatbelt you can seriously injure/kill yourself or others involved in the accident, including those not in the same car as you, that is why it is not a choice to wear a seatbelt but a law, for yours and others safety, your question was answered further up but you have kept going on about it, how someone doesnt understand this in this day and age is quite alarming really, especially as your a driver.
I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents, spectators of rally driving etc."I'm guessing it's due to the volume of cars that are on the road now?? It's not law that I wear protective clothing out on the road while I'm exercising horses but I guess I'd make just as much of a mess if I fell through someone's windscreen with or without a hat on!! And before anyone starts I wear a hat when I'm out riding!! Silly not to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents, spectators of rally driving etc. I'm guessing it's due to the volume of cars that are on the road now?? It's not law that I wear protective clothing out on the road while I'm exercising horses but I guess I'd make just as much of a mess if I fell through someone's windscreen with or without a hat on!! And before anyone starts I wear a hat when I'm out riding!! Silly not to" You're probably right. I just find it curious that we as a society will do what teh government tells us and agree that its perfectly sensible but let other things pass us by. I get very concerned by seeing small children being pushed in buggies etc at exhaust level on the pavement clearly breathing fumes but the powers that be aren't too bothered by that however they take a dim _iew of smoking around kids. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Each drivers phone is likely to be checked for use prior to crash timing. If you've not been using it a quick check is sufficient and you're phone shall be returned. You won't have it 'seized' if you're not the guilty party. People had to get used to wearing seatbelts but simply can't go without using their phones, why? I'd double the points penalty for basic usage." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents, spectators of rally driving etc. I'm guessing it's due to the volume of cars that are on the road now?? It's not law that I wear protective clothing out on the road while I'm exercising horses but I guess I'd make just as much of a mess if I fell through someone's windscreen with or without a hat on!! And before anyone starts I wear a hat when I'm out riding!! Silly not to You're probably right. I just find it curious that we as a society will do what teh government tells us and agree that its perfectly sensible but let other things pass us by. I get very concerned by seeing small children being pushed in buggies etc at exhaust level on the pavement clearly breathing fumes but the powers that be aren't too bothered by that however they take a dim _iew of smoking around kids. " I completely agree!! And as I said earlier (although it was deemed irrelevant) it making kids completely void of common sense! In my industry I see so many kids coming out of college completely useless and un prepared. It's great they can follow instructions but they have no initiative what so ever!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents, spectators of rally driving etc. I'm guessing it's due to the volume of cars that are on the road now?? It's not law that I wear protective clothing out on the road while I'm exercising horses but I guess I'd make just as much of a mess if I fell through someone's windscreen with or without a hat on!! And before anyone starts I wear a hat when I'm out riding!! Silly not to You're probably right. I just find it curious that we as a society will do what teh government tells us and agree that its perfectly sensible but let other things pass us by. I get very concerned by seeing small children being pushed in buggies etc at exhaust level on the pavement clearly breathing fumes but the powers that be aren't too bothered by that however they take a dim _iew of smoking around kids. I completely agree!! And as I said earlier (although it was deemed irrelevant) it making kids completely void of common sense! In my industry I see so many kids coming out of college completely useless and un prepared. It's great they can follow instructions but they have no initiative what so ever!!" Initiative is highly dangerous to the powers that be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to get a good idea of how many drivers use phones then either ride a motorbike or take a pillion ride" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Initiative is highly dangerous to the powers that be." You are totally right! And it's bloody scary......... Plus the gawky nuggets make my day a hell of a lot longer as I've got to do most of their work for them..... 'i can't muck out Walter, he bites.' stay away from his head then! Or the him up!!!! Arrghhhh!!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Initiative is highly dangerous to the powers that be. You are totally right! And it's bloody scary......... Plus the gawky nuggets make my day a hell of a lot longer as I've got to do most of their work for them..... 'i can't muck out Walter, he bites.' stay away from his head then! Or the him up!!!! Arrghhhh!!!!!" In my career I have dealt with a lot of young people and I have to say that I'm heartened by their intelligence, common sense and initiative it's older people that tell them they should tow the line and punish them if they don't. Which I suspect is your point anyway . I try to encourage rebelliousness and channel it in a good direction if I can.
Og God! If "they" are reading this and I don't appear in the forums again you know I've been taken for re education | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was driving down the road minding my own business and not on my mobile phone, I have had a nip for using a mobile phone whilst driving caught by a mobile camera, My phone bill does not show I was using it and my call register does not show me as receiving calls. Looks like a money making exercise to me " Can't you ask to see the photo? Z | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was driving down the road minding my own business and not on my mobile phone, I have had a nip for using a mobile phone whilst driving caught by a mobile camera, My phone bill does not show I was using it and my call register does not show me as receiving calls. Looks like a money making exercise to me Can't you ask to see the photo? Z" I am waiting for it , I wonder how many don't ask and just pay | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Initiative is highly dangerous to the powers that be. You are totally right! And it's bloody scary......... Plus the gawky nuggets make my day a hell of a lot longer as I've got to do most of their work for them..... 'i can't muck out Walter, he bites.' stay away from his head then! Or the him up!!!! Arrghhhh!!!!! In my career I have dealt with a lot of young people and I have to say that I'm heartened by their intelligence, common sense and initiative it's older people that tell them they should tow the line and punish them if they don't. Which I suspect is your point anyway . I try to encourage rebelliousness and channel it in a good direction if I can.
Og God! If "they" are reading this and I don't appear in the forums again you know I've been taken for re education "I wouldn't mind a rebelliousness!! (as long as they didn't put them, me or the horses in danger of course!!) all of ours just sort of stop and wait for further instruction they never go and find anything to do!! Can I have some of yours please??!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Initiative is highly dangerous to the powers that be. You are totally right! And it's bloody scary......... Plus the gawky nuggets make my day a hell of a lot longer as I've got to do most of their work for them..... 'i can't muck out Walter, he bites.' stay away from his head then! Or the him up!!!! Arrghhhh!!!!! In my career I have dealt with a lot of young people and I have to say that I'm heartened by their intelligence, common sense and initiative it's older people that tell them they should tow the line and punish them if they don't. Which I suspect is your point anyway . I try to encourage rebelliousness and channel it in a good direction if I can.
Og God! If "they" are reading this and I don't appear in the forums again you know I've been taken for re education
I wouldn't mind a rebelliousness!! (as long as they didn't put them, me or the horses in danger of course!!) all of ours just sort of stop and wait for further instruction they never go and find anything to do!! Can I have some of yours please??!!"You can have 'em all, I retired three weeks ago ...early I might add | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I completely agree!! And as I said earlier (although it was deemed irrelevant) it making kids completely void of common sense! In my industry I see so many kids coming out of college completely useless and un prepared. It's great they can follow instructions but they have no initiative what so ever!!" it wasn't 'deemed' irrelevant it was a point of _iew based on your chucking in the lack of common sense in children etc which btw is just your narrow opinion based on your experiences with 'some' children/young people.. perhaps before ranting about it being deemed irrelevant look at the actual context of the issue whish was about wearing seat belts, the choice or not to do so in any case for children cant be left to them.. so yes it was totally irrelevant.. or just an opinion eh. any debate about common sense in the young is valid.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it should be made illegal to use hands free whilst on the move too - it's terribly distracting even though you've got oth hands free, just make the use of phones whilst driving illegal. Z" Personally I would like mobile phones made illegal outside of the home. I agree that there is sometimes a need to communicate by phone when out an about, so think there should be boxes with phones in them to cover that need, we could paint them red to make them easy to see... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've completely over reacted about me asking a question. I never said I don't wear a seat belt. I never said it was safe not too. I never said I didn't understand what would probably happen in a crash if I wasn't wearing one. I only asked what affect it had on other road users if I chose not to wear one. After insinuating I was stupid for not wearing a seatbelt (something I never said) and telling me I needed saving from myself, you eventually answer my question. I don't think be a bad influence on others is should be a punishable offence, it's other people's choice what they do and how they behave. So no, if I chose not to wear a seat belt it wouldn't affect any other road users.I agree with someone that posted further up, I think it should be down to the driver to decide especially if they are the only one in the car. any over reaction on my part is probably down to literally picking up the pieces of people who didn't wear seat belts, they wont need to again where they ended up.. again happy to apologise if your perception is that I was trying to make you feel stupid, it wasn't my intent.. what I will say is that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt is totally stupid and in doing so is showing an utter lack of any thought toward those who love them.. I'm with you on this sweetie, the I'm ok jack attitude, springs to mind... Spare a thought for the aftermath... And the poor sods that, have to scrape you off the road, speak to your relatives.. Look after to you, and your nonchalant attitude...
Ok, last time I'm going to say it. I didn't say I don't wear a seat belt, but I do think it should be up to the indivdual to decide. Dear God can nobody read??
it has been proven that in an accident by not wearing a seatbelt you can seriously injure/kill yourself or others involved in the accident, including those not in the same car as you, that is why it is not a choice to wear a seatbelt but a law, for yours and others safety, your question was answered further up but you have kept going on about it, how someone doesnt understand this in this day and age is quite alarming really, especially as your a driver.
Right, not one person said that I could injure someone in a separate car, Im guessing those occurrences are rare but fair enough, thank you for answering my question even if you did feel the need to have a dig at the end!"its not a dig, it really is alarming that in this day and age people think that way, and yes accidents with the force to propel someone through windscreens are rare but are a possibility and do happen, as for the other stuff, government taking a stance on smoking around children but not fumes, do you really expect our incompetent government to do anything about that, but in fairness some things require some common sense from parents aswell. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it should be made illegal to use hands free whilst on the move too - it's terribly distracting even though you've got oth hands free, just make the use of phones whilst driving illegal. Z Personally I would like mobile phones made illegal outside of the home. I agree that there is sometimes a need to communicate by phone when out an about, so think there should be boxes with phones in them to cover that need, we could paint them red to make them easy to see... "Excellent idea....I'm amazed no one came up with it before | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I completely agree!! And as I said earlier (although it was deemed irrelevant) it making kids completely void of common sense! In my industry I see so many kids coming out of college completely useless and un prepared. It's great they can follow instructions but they have no initiative what so ever!! it wasn't 'deemed' irrelevant it was a point of _iew based on your chucking in the lack of common sense in children etc which btw is just your narrow opinion based on your experiences with 'some' children/young people.. perhaps before ranting about it being deemed irrelevant look at the actual context of the issue whish was about wearing seat belts, the choice or not to do so in any case for children cant be left to them.. so yes it was totally irrelevant.. or just an opinion eh. any debate about common sense in the young is valid.." You completely missed my point, other people didn't so I'm not going to try and explain it again to you. And I'm not narrow minded, from my experience that's what's happening, maybe I've just been unlucky | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" its not a dig, it really is alarming that in this day and age people think that way, and yes accidents with the force to propel someone through windscreens are rare but are a possibility and do happen, as for the other stuff, government taking a stance on smoking around children but not fumes, do you really expect our incompetent government to do anything about that, but in fairness some things require some common sense from parents aswell." I think that everything health and safety wise needs common sense and I have no objection to being required to wear a seat belt or to having my kids in a specially designed car seat etc. But I would have done that anyway, in teh same way that I wouldn't have ever smoked round my children, I used fire guards, didn't give them peanuts when they were 6 month sold, ensured they learned to cross teh road safely and wore a helmet when they rode their bike....their are countless ways in which to keep ourselves and our children safe why are we trusted to do some of them without legislation and not others? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it's their right to do as they like!! As long as its not going to affect anyone else, I don't want some suit telling me how to live my life!! Someone jumping off a bridge is probably not all the time though someone asking for help. Someone not wearing a seatbelt is just someone who doesn't want to wear a seatbelt!!" And when the person not wearing the seat belt goes through the windscreen and travels onward and into the car in front via the rear window landing full force on little johnny what happens to little johnnys right to choice ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im all for it,, id never be found guilty of using my phone whilst driving so wont have anything to hide " Well said, i am in full agreement here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im all for it,, id never be found guilty of using my phone whilst driving so wont have anything to hide Well said, i am in full agreement here "I am against everyone having to do something just because a minority break the law. The argument that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide is too easy, why SHOULD I have to surrender my mobile phone if I've commited no crime? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents" All the people who turn out for Mountain Rescue Teams (including those who are members of RAF Mountain Rescue Teams) are volunteers and are climbers and ramblers themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents All the people who turn out for Mountain Rescue Teams (including those who are members of RAF Mountain Rescue Teams) are volunteers and are climbers and ramblers themselves. "why does my comment earn a roll eyes? They still stand a chance of being injured helping someone involved in a dangerous pastime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it should be made illegal to use hands free whilst on the move too - it's terribly distracting even though you've got oth hands free, just make the use of phones whilst driving illegal. Z" Really! Have you thought that through? Hint, if talking on a hands free kit is so dangerous that it should be made an offence then it should also be an offence for passengers in a vehicle to speak to the driver or for radios or cd's to be used as they also cause a distraction... So would you also want to see all ICE made illegal in cars and passengers to have to be gagged so as not to distract drivers?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But it's their right to do as they like!! As long as its not going to affect anyone else, I don't want some suit telling me how to live my life!! Someone jumping off a bridge is probably not all the time though someone asking for help. Someone not wearing a seatbelt is just someone who doesn't want to wear a seatbelt!! And when the person not wearing the seat belt goes through the windscreen and travels onward and into the car in front via the rear window landing full force on little johnny what happens to little johnnys right to choice ? " Yes you make a good point, I didn't really make that comment in that context but still your right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" passengers to have to be gagged so as not to distract drivers? " With my ex mother in law - that law would have suited me fine! Could it apply out of the car too !! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents All the people who turn out for Mountain Rescue Teams (including those who are members of RAF Mountain Rescue Teams) are volunteers and are climbers and ramblers themselves.
why does my comment earn a roll eyes? They still stand a chance of being injured helping someone involved in a dangerous pastime."No rolling eyes here - but I guess it's down to volume and potential impact on others. There's millions more car drivers than mountaineers/bungee jumpers/pot holers etc, and those guys don't carry passengers or take part in activities alongside hundreds of others travelling at high speeds. A | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im all for it,, id never be found guilty of using my phone whilst driving so wont have anything to hide Well said, i am in full agreement here
I am against everyone having to do something just because a minority break the law. The argument that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide is too easy, why SHOULD I have to surrender my mobile phone if I've commited no crime? "If you havn't done anything wrong then why on earth would you mind letting them check your phone ? The police need to check the phone to make sure you havn't commited a crime though ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im all for it,, id never be found guilty of using my phone whilst driving so wont have anything to hide Well said, i am in full agreement here
I am against everyone having to do something just because a minority break the law. The argument that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide is too easy, why SHOULD I have to surrender my mobile phone if I've commited no crime?
If you havn't done anything wrong then why on earth would you mind letting them check your phone ?
The police need to check the phone to make sure you havn't commited a crime though !"I think it's an emotive discussion because a few people (myself included) feel that the police/ government are infringing just a little too much in the life of average Joe. We can't be trusted to make our own decisions, we should give up our ( I hate to say it but) most personal possessions for inspection and we pay for the person who's doing it!!!! I know why we all pay tax and what not but it smacks of big brother | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Better delete all my pics just incase they see my penis there lol." well it wouldn't be anything they havnt seen before would it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im all for it,, id never be found guilty of using my phone whilst driving so wont have anything to hide Well said, i am in full agreement here
I am against everyone having to do something just because a minority break the law. The argument that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide is too easy, why SHOULD I have to surrender my mobile phone if I've commited no crime?
If you havn't done anything wrong then why on earth would you mind letting them check your phone ?
The police need to check the phone to make sure you havn't commited a crime though !
I think it's an emotive discussion because a few people (myself included) feel that the police/ government are infringing just a little too much in the life of average Joe. We can't be trusted to make our own decisions, we should give up our ( I hate to say it but) most personal possessions for inspection and we pay for the person who's doing it!!!! I know why we all pay tax and what not but it smacks of big brother"In some cases the police can't tell for sure who was to blame for the accident until they check mobile phones. In serious or fatal accident the police do an enormous amount of background work to make sure all the details of who did what and when are known, this goes towards the judge deciding what punishment is given. Following my relatives fatal accident the police did huge amounts of investigation to find out for sure who caused the accident, they didnt just go by the witness reports nor my relatives report (they didnt die straight away but at a later date), they checked speeds of the vehicles, postioning, phone records etc, very detailed and all that provided the evidence to say who had been at fault even though it seemed to be a fairly easy accident to say who was to blame for it. It's all important and sometimes they get very suprising evidence from it. Personally if i was a police officer attending an accident and someone was reluctant to allow us to check their phone i would straight away think they had something to hide anyway ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its an interesting thread, the seatbelt thing is a no brainer plain and simple. As for phone use,even full hands free with voice dialling is a distraction.i know i have to use the phone (fully hands free) as my job would be impossible without. I have passed many assesments through my driving history , drive 40k a year , am iam advanced , passed a class 1 course , am also an Ards motorsport instructor. phones are one of the worst distraction however the level of attention paid to whats going on around the by drivers not distracted by something else is stunning. Get someone to drive a few miles and comment whats going on around them would stun you , ok doing it is an art but it does highlight what people see and what they are oblivious too .. just my musings on the matter." Using a mobile phone when you are driving is a no brainer as well, I found it funny recently the police camped out at the top of a slip road and must have stopped 10 cars all using thier mobile phone. This happened as I was filling up the car with petrol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents All the people who turn out for Mountain Rescue Teams (including those who are members of RAF Mountain Rescue Teams) are volunteers and are climbers and ramblers themselves.
why does my comment earn a roll eyes? They still stand a chance of being injured helping someone involved in a dangerous pastime."The rolled eyes is because I have heard your bleat before and it is such a crock! I used to be a weekend volunteer with Ogwen Valley team in the mid 70's, I used to spend weekends soloing (climbing without ropes) on Idwall Slabs with a 2 way radio and a rucksack full of rescue equipment. The vast majority of those that required help were not 'mountaineers' as in rock climbers or real ramblers they were ignorant families with no experience or equipment who broke/sprained ankles or became dehydrated when they decided that they did not need proper clothing, boots, food, drink, maps, knowledge or experience to get out of their cars and follow those properly equipped into the hills while wearing flip-flops/trainers/high heels/Sunday go to church shoes and clothes! You may have a point though, how about we put up police checkpoints on all roads leading into the hills and only allow those who live in the hills or with 'mountaineering qualifications' say an MLTB qualification to enter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Better delete all my pics just incase they see my penis there lol. well it wouldn't be anything they havnt seen before would it?" Your right there it would be the same they seen, but maibe they think why he got it there and thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it should be made illegal to use hands free whilst on the move too - it's terribly distracting even though you've got oth hands free, just make the use of phones whilst driving illegal. Z Really! Have you thought that through? Hint, if talking on a hands free kit is so dangerous that it should be made an offence then it should also be an offence for passengers in a vehicle to speak to the driver or for radios or cd's to be used as they also cause a distraction... So would you also want to see all ICE made illegal in cars and passengers to have to be gagged so as not to distract drivers?
"Did you by any chance see the program drivers who kill last week ? I'm assuming you didn't because if you had they showed that driving whilst using a hands free kit was more distracting than driving over the drink drive limit ( they used a simulator ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well said, i am in full agreement here
I am against everyone having to do something just because a minority break the law. The argument that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide is too easy, why SHOULD I have to surrender my mobile phone if I've commited no crime?
If you havn't done anything wrong then why on earth would you mind letting them check your phone ?
The police need to check the phone to make sure you havn't commited a crime though !
I think it's
In some cases the police can't tell for sure who was to blame for the accident until they check mobile phones.
In serious or fatal accident the police do an enormous amount of background work to make sure all the details of who did what and when are known, this goes towards the judge deciding what punishment is given.
Following my relatives fatal accident the police did huge amounts of investigation to find out for sure who caused the accident, they didnt just go by the witness reports nor my relatives report (they didnt die straight away but at a later date), they checked speeds of the vehicles, postioning, phone records etc, very detailed and all that provided the evidence to say who had been at fault even though it seemed to be a fairly easy accident to say who was to blame for it. It's all important and sometimes they get very suprising evidence from it.
Personally if i was a police officer attending an accident and someone was reluctant to allow us to check their phone i would straight away think they had something to hide anyway !"In the case of some kind of conviction yes I whole heartily agree but if they check for every accident it's a small step to checking if you get pulled over isn't it?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it should be made illegal to use hands free whilst on the move too - it's terribly distracting even though you've got oth hands free, just make the use of phones whilst driving illegal. Z Really! Have you thought that through? Hint, if talking on a hands free kit is so dangerous that it should be made an offence then it should also be an offence for passengers in a vehicle to speak to the driver or for radios or cd's to be used as they also cause a distraction... So would you also want to see all ICE made illegal in cars and passengers to have to be gagged so as not to distract drivers?
Did you by any chance see the program drivers who kill last week ? I'm assuming you didn't because if you had they showed that driving whilst using a hands free kit was more distracting than driving over the drink drive limit ( they used a simulator ) "hands free kits arent illegal though?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it should be made illegal to use hands free whilst on the move too - it's terribly distracting even though you've got oth hands free, just make the use of phones whilst driving illegal. Z Really! Have you thought that through? Hint, if talking on a hands free kit is so dangerous that it should be made an offence then it should also be an offence for passengers in a vehicle to speak to the driver or for radios or cd's to be used as they also cause a distraction... So would you also want to see all ICE made illegal in cars and passengers to have to be gagged so as not to distract drivers?
Did you by any chance see the program drivers who kill last week ? I'm assuming you didn't because if you had they showed that driving whilst using a hands free kit was more distracting than driving over the drink drive limit ( they used a simulator ) hands free kits arent illegal though?! "No they're not but maybe soon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you havn't done anything wrong then why on earth would you mind letting them check your phone ? The police need to check the phone to make sure you havn't commited a crime though !" No real problem with letting them check the phone at the scene of an accident then give it back as I won't have used it whilst driving. Problem comes when you get hit by another car then your phone is taken for examination, you have no phone for 3+ months, and did nothing wrong in the first place. They could check the last call you made, they could check the last text you SENT, but can't see from a roadside check if you read the last text received before, during, or after the event. and they can't tell if you were browsing the internet unless you have posted something. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it should be made illegal to use hands free whilst on the move too - it's terribly distracting even though you've got oth hands free, just make the use of phones whilst driving illegal. Z Really! Have you thought that through? Hint, if talking on a hands free kit is so dangerous that it should be made an offence then it should also be an offence for passengers in a vehicle to speak to the driver or for radios or cd's to be used as they also cause a distraction... So would you also want to see all ICE made illegal in cars and passengers to have to be gagged so as not to distract drivers?
Did you by any chance see the program drivers who kill last week ? I'm assuming you didn't because if you had they showed that driving whilst using a hands free kit was more distracting than driving over the drink drive limit ( they used a simulator ) hands free kits arent illegal though?!
No they're not but maybe soon "Hmmmm maybe but how are all those business Men and woman that line the pockets of our dear government types going to to cope?!
I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't happen and isn't chatting hands free the same as talking to a passenger?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents All the people who turn out for Mountain Rescue Teams (including those who are members of RAF Mountain Rescue Teams) are volunteers and are climbers and ramblers themselves.
why does my comment earn a roll eyes? They still stand a chance of being injured helping someone involved in a dangerous pastime.
The rolled eyes is because I have heard your bleat before and it is such a crock!
I used to be a weekend volunteer with Ogwen Valley team in the mid 70's, I used to spend weekends soloing (climbing without ropes) on Idwall Slabs with a 2 way radio and a rucksack full of rescue equipment. The vast majority of those that required help were not 'mountaineers' as in rock climbers or real ramblers they were ignorant families with no experience or equipment who broke/sprained ankles or became dehydrated when they decided that they did not need proper clothing, boots, food, drink, maps, knowledge or experience to get out of their cars and follow those properly equipped into the hills while wearing flip-flops/trainers/high heels/Sunday go to church shoes and clothes!
You may have a point though, how about we put up police checkpoints on all roads leading into the hills and only allow those who live in the hills or with 'mountaineering qualifications' say an MLTB qualification to enter? "you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im all for it,, id never be found guilty of using my phone whilst driving so wont have anything to hide Well said, i am in full agreement here
I am against everyone having to do something just because a minority break the law. The argument that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide is too easy, why SHOULD I have to surrender my mobile phone if I've commited no crime?
If you havn't done anything wrong then why on earth would you mind letting them check your phone ?
The police need to check the phone to make sure you havn't commited a crime though !"I wouldn't mind them checking my phone as such but where would you like the line to be drawn? That's my point we are steadily having our rights to privacy eroded "for our own good" and because "we have nothing to fear if we've done nothing wrong" we are already recorded on cctv daily, our phone calls and internet usage are tracked and there is discussion around installing cctv in offices to monitor workers, loads of people who drive for a living have trackers fitted to their vehicles and so on all in the name of keeping us safe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im all for it,, id never be found guilty of using my phone whilst driving so wont have anything to hide Well said, i am in full agreement here
I am against everyone having to do something just because a minority break the law. The argument that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide is too easy, why SHOULD I have to surrender my mobile phone if I've commited no crime?
If you havn't done anything wrong then why on earth would you mind letting them check your phone ?
The police need to check the phone to make sure you havn't commited a crime though !
I wouldn't mind them checking my phone as such but where would you like the line to be drawn? That's my point we are steadily having our rights to privacy eroded "for our own good" and because "we have nothing to fear if we've done nothing wrong" we are already recorded on cctv daily, our phone calls and internet usage are tracked and there is discussion around installing cctv in offices to monitor workers, loads of people who drive for a living have trackers fitted to their vehicles and so on all in the name of keeping us safe.
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents All the people who turn out for Mountain Rescue Teams (including those who are members of RAF Mountain Rescue Teams) are volunteers and are climbers and ramblers themselves.
why does my comment earn a roll eyes? They still stand a chance of being injured helping someone involved in a dangerous pastime.
The rolled eyes is because I have heard your bleat before and it is such a crock!
I used to be a weekend volunteer with Ogwen Valley team in the mid 70's, I used to spend weekends soloing (climbing without ropes) on Idwall Slabs with a 2 way radio and a rucksack full of rescue equipment. The vast majority of those that required help were not 'mountaineers' as in rock climbers or real ramblers they were ignorant families with no experience or equipment who broke/sprained ankles or became dehydrated when they decided that they did not need proper clothing, boots, food, drink, maps, knowledge or experience to get out of their cars and follow those properly equipped into the hills while wearing flip-flops/trainers/high heels/Sunday go to church shoes and clothes!
You may have a point though, how about we put up police checkpoints on all roads leading into the hills and only allow those who live in the hills or with 'mountaineering qualifications' say an MLTB qualification to enter?
you've completely misunderstood what I was saying. "I was saying that I don't understand why legislation is on place for one dangerous pastime and not others. Not that I think it should be in place for all of them. I was trying to point out as it seems are you, the illogical nature of it all. Only I was trying to do it without rolling my eyes at anyone or saying their opinions are a bleat or a crock | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it should be made illegal to use hands free whilst on the move too - it's terribly distracting even though you've got oth hands free, just make the use of phones whilst driving illegal. Z Really! Have you thought that through? Hint, if talking on a hands free kit is so dangerous that it should be made an offence then it should also be an offence for passengers in a vehicle to speak to the driver or for radios or cd's to be used as they also cause a distraction... So would you also want to see all ICE made illegal in cars and passengers to have to be gagged so as not to distract drivers?
Did you by any chance see the program drivers who kill last week ? I'm assuming you didn't because if you had they showed that driving whilst using a hands free kit was more distracting than driving over the drink drive limit ( they used a simulator ) hands free kits arent illegal though?!
No they're not but maybe soon
Hmmmm maybe but how are all those business Men and woman that line the pockets of our dear government types going to to cope?!
I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't happen and isn't chatting hands free the same as talking to a passenger??"I suppose the business types will have to cope like the old days lol
As for talking to passengers I don't suppose we concentrate as much on what they'r saying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents All the people who turn out for Mountain Rescue Teams (including those who are members of RAF Mountain Rescue Teams) are volunteers and are climbers and ramblers themselves.
why does my comment earn a roll eyes? They still stand a chance of being injured helping someone involved in a dangerous pastime.
The rolled eyes is because I have heard your bleat before and it is such a crock!
I used to be a weekend volunteer with Ogwen Valley team in the mid 70's, I used to spend weekends soloing (climbing without ropes) on Idwall Slabs with a 2 way radio and a rucksack full of rescue equipment. The vast majority of those that required help were not 'mountaineers' as in rock climbers or real ramblers they were ignorant families with no experience or equipment who broke/sprained ankles or became dehydrated when they decided that they did not need proper clothing, boots, food, drink, maps, knowledge or experience to get out of their cars and follow those properly equipped into the hills while wearing flip-flops/trainers/high heels/Sunday go to church shoes and clothes!
You may have a point though, how about we put up police checkpoints on all roads leading into the hills and only allow those who live in the hills or with 'mountaineering qualifications' say an MLTB qualification to enter?
you've completely misunderstood what I was saying.
I was saying that I don't understand why legislation is on place for one dangerous pastime and not others. Not that I think it should be in place for all of them. I was trying to point out as it seems are you, the illogical nature of it all. Only I was trying to do it without rolling my eyes at anyone or saying their opinions are a bleat or a crock"Please correct me if I am wrong but the wearing of seatbelts (your example) was made compulsory because of the psychological cost to those who had to deal with the aftermath of RTC's where seatbelts were not worn, because it was accepted that individual freedom to choose had to take second place when there was a duty placed on others (police, ambulance and fire services) to clear up the mess. There is no such duty paced on mountain/cave rescue teams, RNLI crews or any other voluntary organization. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually think it should be made illegal to use hands free whilst on the move too - it's terribly distracting even though you've got oth hands free, just make the use of phones whilst driving illegal. Z Really! Have you thought that through? Hint, if talking on a hands free kit is so dangerous that it should be made an offence then it should also be an offence for passengers in a vehicle to speak to the driver or for radios or cd's to be used as they also cause a distraction... So would you also want to see all ICE made illegal in cars and passengers to have to be gagged so as not to distract drivers?
Did you by any chance see the program drivers who kill last week ? I'm assuming you didn't because if you had they showed that driving whilst using a hands free kit was more distracting than driving over the drink drive limit ( they used a simulator ) hands free kits arent illegal though?!
No they're not but maybe soon "It's distracting using a hands free kit - I know as I drive day in and day out and when it's work you have to concentracte more - it's not like chatting to a passenger - you're trying to answer questions, remember prices and what's in your diary and on and on and on - so yes - I still think that all communication devices should be switched off when you're driving. Z | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I wonder why things like wearing a seat belt are law but dangerous sports are allowed by individual choice even though the possibility of injuring other people is high, eg rescuers of mountaineers who have accidents All the people who turn out for Mountain Rescue Teams (including those who are members of RAF Mountain Rescue Teams) are volunteers and are climbers and ramblers themselves.
why does my comment earn a roll eyes? They still stand a chance of being injured helping someone involved in a dangerous pastime.
The rolled eyes is because I have heard your bleat before and it is such a crock!
I used to be a weekend volunteer with Ogwen Valley team in the mid 70's, I used to spend weekends soloing (climbing without ropes) on Idwall Slabs with a 2 way radio and a rucksack full of rescue equipment. The vast majority of those that required help were not 'mountaineers' as in rock climbers or real ramblers they were ignorant families with no experience or equipment who broke/sprained ankles or became dehydrated when they decided that they did not need proper clothing, boots, food, drink, maps, knowledge or experience to get out of their cars and follow those properly equipped into the hills while wearing flip-flops/trainers/high heels/Sunday go to church shoes and clothes!
You may have a point though, how about we put up police checkpoints on all roads leading into the hills and only allow those who live in the hills or with 'mountaineering qualifications' say an MLTB qualification to enter?
you've completely misunderstood what I was saying.
I was saying that I don't understand why legislation is on place for one dangerous pastime and not others. Not that I think it should be in place for all of them. I was trying to point out as it seems are you, the illogical nature of it all. Only I was trying to do it without rolling my eyes at anyone or saying their opinions are a bleat or a crock
Please correct me if I am wrong but the wearing of seatbelts (your example) was made compulsory because of the psychological cost to those who had to deal with the aftermath of RTC's where seatbelts were not worn, because it was accepted that individual freedom to choose had to take second place when there was a duty placed on others (police, ambulance and fire services) to clear up the mess. There is no such duty paced on mountain/cave rescue teams, RNLI crews or any other voluntary organization. "Sorry I thought it was to save life and prevent injury not to protect the feelings of people who chose those professions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
