The Motor Forum Forum Index The Motor Forum
"We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Thank you, Matt Prior.
Page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bob Sacamano
Nuclear

My Car: BMW 320d M Sport Auto

Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 11884



PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:36 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

gooner wrote:


The BBC report evidence from The University of Sussex that hands free calls are equally distracting. If you went through a speed camera and got a ticket whilst trying to recite some technical info then doesn't that prove my point. I stated that a passenger will often be aware of a hazard and shut up whilst you deal with it, it's never a garauntee of course, but much more likely than the person at the end of the phone.


No it proves my point. I'm not saying that taking a phone call at the wheel isn't distracting, just that other situations at the wheel are equally distracting and if you're going to address one you need to address the other.
You can't eliminate risk, companies in the most risk averse industry, the Oil industry, are beginning to realise that  - it's about accepting there will always be risks and managing them, otherwise you'd get nothing done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gooner
Twin-charged

My Car: Insignia low tax special and Fiat Panda Eleganza

Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 8923


Location: here, there and every bloody where!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob Sacamano wrote:
gooner wrote:


The BBC report evidence from The University of Sussex that hands free calls are equally distracting. If you went through a speed camera and got a ticket whilst trying to recite some technical info then doesn't that prove my point. I stated that a passenger will often be aware of a hazard and shut up whilst you deal with it, it's never a garauntee of course, but much more likely than the person at the end of the phone.


No it proves my point. I'm not saying that taking a phone call at the wheel isn't distracting, just that other situations at the wheel are equally distracting and if you're going to address one you need to address the other.
You can't eliminate risk, companies in the most risk averse industry, the Oil industry, are beginning to realise that  - it's about accepting there will always be risks and managing them, otherwise you'd get nothing done.


The point I was making in my blog post was in relation to companies that expect their staff to make and accept business calls whilst driving and don't manage the time of their staff to allow for calls to be separate from driving. I've worked with a number of organisations that have such practices and yet their health and safety policy statement clearly states that they will minimise the risk to non employees (i.e. Members of the public, contractors etc) of their business activities. Expecting staff who drive for business purposes to be subjected to unnecessary distractions which can be punishable offences under road traffic law doesn't sit well with the statement of their policy.
_________________


- Insert clever and/or amusing quote here -
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Twelfth Monkey
Nuclear

My Car: B7 RS4 Saloon, A3 Sportback 2.0T

Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 14462


Location: The Fortress of Ultimate Darkness; that or the pub.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob Sacamano wrote:
Twelfth Monkey wrote:
I understand what you are saying, I really do - but experience tends to suggest that people collectively do not step up to the plate when you simply expect them to behave responsibly.


OK, so we ban alcohol, cigarettes, fatty & sugary foods, limit the drugs and painkillers we are allowed to have in the home, fit 50mph limiters to all vehicles and link them to a GPS system that prevents them speeding in urban areas, limit all vehicles to 100hp and restrict acceleration, fence off all potentially dangerous locations, ban all extreme sports, ban leisure sailing and swimming at areas without lifeguards, turn off the TV and internet network at 10pm...You see where I'm going with this?


I think you're missing what for me is one of the most important points.  It doesn't apply to all in your list, but with most of them, the victim is yourself.  I do favour taxation to steer people towards healthier lifestyles, such as taxes on high sugar items, and accept that on the odd occasion I'll pay such taxes myself.  But phone use whilst driving can have life-changing effects upon others, and their rights need protecting more forcefully in some instances.  If people don't man up for their own sake, that's their look out.  But where the consequences can be so serious for others, I don't favour so much latitude, personally.

We watched Crimewatch this week, which was about driving offences and actually wasn't too preachy.  The in car footage of the lorry driver who wiped out most of a family because he was using his phone to control music is not something I'll forget in a hurry.

I don't know whether anyone else saw it - the road rage pieces where drivers ran over pedestrians who'd pissed them off was fucking scary...
_________________
"Accident Blackspot"? These aren't accidents. They're throwing themselves into the road gladly. Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness.'

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bob Sacamano
Nuclear

My Car: BMW 320d M Sport Auto

Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 11884



PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Twelfth Monkey wrote:


But phone use whilst driving can have life-changing effects upon others, and their rights need protecting more forcefully in some instances.  If people don't man up for their own sake, that's their look out.  But where the consequences can be so serious for others, I don't favour so much latitude, personally.
.


So can driving high powered cars capable of 2 and three times the maximum speed permitted on British roads. Are you happy to be restricted to something with no more power than a Prius? Are the Porsche driving members of the forum happy to give up their totally unnecessary vehicles for something where they'd be incapable of inflicting horrific injuries to others if they decided to use a fraction of the potential performance and lost it?

Also, you say that alcohol, drug and over-indulgence only affect oneself and not others, I'd contend that is not the case as the treatment of the diseases these actions cause impact on the NHS and the ability of it to provide healthcare to the rest of us.

If you're saying that people are not capable of knowing when and where it is safe to make a hands free phone call then I don't see how you can argue that they are capable of knowing when and where to put their foot down in a 400bhp car.

I don't think it's unreasonable as an employer that if I expect them to drive as part of their job, and to do so safely, that I can also expect them to answer hands free phone calls, and do so safely. The end result of these ridiculous policies is that you end up with policies, that I have seen, that ask you not to walk and use your mobile phone. It's getting a bit risky for people to get out of bed these days.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Twelfth Monkey
Nuclear

My Car: B7 RS4 Saloon, A3 Sportback 2.0T

Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 14462


Location: The Fortress of Ultimate Darkness; that or the pub.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A decade driving a car with 400+ bhp without accident suggests that I can quite convincingly argue that I know how and when to deploy it safely.  I'm giving matters my full concentration (and am happy to pay the full penalty of the law if I transgress) - mobile-using drivers are by definition not.

Let's agree to disagree about the rest.
_________________
"Accident Blackspot"? These aren't accidents. They're throwing themselves into the road gladly. Throwing themselves into the road to escape all this hideousness.'

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
gooner
Twin-charged

My Car: Insignia low tax special and Fiat Panda Eleganza

Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 8923


Location: here, there and every bloody where!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob Sacamano wrote:
Twelfth Monkey wrote:


But phone use whilst driving can have life-changing effects upon others, and their rights need protecting more forcefully in some instances.  If people don't man up for their own sake, that's their look out.  But where the consequences can be so serious for others, I don't favour so much latitude, personally.
.


So can driving high powered cars capable of 2 and three times the maximum speed permitted on British roads. Are you happy to be restricted to something with no more power than a Prius? Are the Porsche driving members of the forum happy to give up their totally unnecessary vehicles for something where they'd be incapable of inflicting horrific injuries to others if they decided to use a fraction of the potential performance and lost it?

If you're saying that people are not capable of knowing when and where it is safe to make a hands free phone call then I don't see how you can argue that they are capable of knowing when and where to put their foot down in a 400bhp car.

I don't think it's unreasonable as an employer that if I expect them to drive as part of their job, and to do so safely, that I can also expect them to answer hands free phone calls, and do so safely. The end result of these ridiculous policies is that you end up with policies, that I have seen, that ask you not to walk and use your mobile phone. It's getting a bit risky for people to get out of bed these days.


You are aware, of course, that a Prius is capable of exceeding the maximum permitted motorway speed by 42mph?

We will have to agree to disagree because I don't think it's acceptable to expect drivers to take calls whilst driving as it can compromise safety, no matter how good a driver they are or how relaxed the conversation is, and if it was to result in a serious accident I don't see how your argument is a suitable defence. If a driver making a business call misses a red light and kills a pedestrian is it really acceptable to say they were using a hands free kit? And if it was you they hit would you be happy that their employer didn't allow them enough time to travel between appointments AND stop to make their calls? Of course not.

Martin is probably considered a very competent driver and ever he admitted to having to slow down and leave bigger gaps in order to have an informal phone conversation, so extrapolate that out to a stressed paper clip sales rep tailgating in the outside line whilst trying to remember the bulk discount he can offer on treasury tags or the cost of upgrading to bulldog clips and you now have a driver who's a much bigger danger to other road users than if he was sat in a service station getting the correct figures on his laptop.
_________________


- Insert clever and/or amusing quote here -
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin
Nuclear

My Car: BMW 535d M Sport & Boxster 987.2

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 14425


Location: Higham Ferrers

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It all comes back to personal responsibility.  There are loads of reasons you could have an accident as a result of a choice you've made behind the wheel, it could be driving too fast for the road/conditions, using a phone, overtaking in an inappropriate place or even just arguing with the kids.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob Sacamano
Nuclear

My Car: BMW 320d M Sport Auto

Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 11884



PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin wrote:
It all comes back to personal responsibility.  There are loads of reasons you could have an accident as a result of a choice you've made behind the wheel, it could be driving too fast for the road/conditions, using a phone, overtaking in an inappropriate place or even just arguing with the kids.


You forget, no-one takes personal responsibility anymore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob Sacamano
Nuclear

My Car: BMW 320d M Sport Auto

Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 11884



PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gooner wrote:


Martin is probably considered a very competent driver and ever he admitted to having to slow down and leave bigger gaps in order to have an informal phone conversation, so extrapolate that out to a stressed paper clip sales rep tailgating in the outside line whilst trying to remember the bulk discount he can offer on treasury tags or the cost of upgrading to bulldog clips and you now have a driver who's a much bigger danger to other road users than if he was sat in a service station getting the correct figures on his laptop.


You could equally extrapolate that the paper clip salesman who has safely taken the call and given the information is now driving far more safely than the one who couldn't take the call and is now driving frantically to get to the next service station, panicking incase he's lost the order. You can twist any argument to suit the agenda.

I regularly pass vans with stickers on the back saying they are restricted to 60mph. I'm assuming you'd want that applied to company cars and personal cars used on company business?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gooner
Twin-charged

My Car: Insignia low tax special and Fiat Panda Eleganza

Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 8923


Location: here, there and every bloody where!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob Sacamano wrote:
gooner wrote:


Martin is probably considered a very competent driver and ever he admitted to having to slow down and leave bigger gaps in order to have an informal phone conversation, so extrapolate that out to a stressed paper clip sales rep tailgating in the outside line whilst trying to remember the bulk discount he can offer on treasury tags or the cost of upgrading to bulldog clips and you now have a driver who's a much bigger danger to other road users than if he was sat in a service station getting the correct figures on his laptop.


You could equally extrapolate that the paper clip salesman who has safely taken the call and given the information is now driving far more safely than the one who couldn't take the call and is now driving frantically to get to the next service station, panicking incase he's lost the order. You can twist any argument to suit the agenda.

I regularly pass vans with stickers on the back saying they are restricted to 60mph. I'm assuming you'd want that applied to company cars and personal cars used on company business?


I don't want that it was your suggestion!
_________________


- Insert clever and/or amusing quote here -
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob Sacamano
Nuclear

My Car: BMW 320d M Sport Auto

Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 11884



PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gooner wrote:
Bob Sacamano wrote:


I regularly pass vans with stickers on the back saying they are restricted to 60mph. I'm assuming you'd want that applied to company cars and personal cars used on company business?


I don't want that it was your suggestion!


But is where your argument is logically taking us!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gooner
Twin-charged

My Car: Insignia low tax special and Fiat Panda Eleganza

Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 8923


Location: here, there and every bloody where!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob Sacamano wrote:
gooner wrote:
Bob Sacamano wrote:


I regularly pass vans with stickers on the back saying they are restricted to 60mph. I'm assuming you'd want that applied to company cars and personal cars used on company business?


I don't want that it was your suggestion!


But is where your argument is logically taking us!


Sadly I think we'll be there anyway in ten years time. Most larger companies have started putting 70mph limiters on their vans so it's only a matter of time. Others are using telematics to track the standard of driving of their staff. Insurance companies use such devices to reduce risk enough to get a sensible premium for new drivers, how long before the same tool is used to win business fleet insurance customers?
_________________


- Insert clever and/or amusing quote here -
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin
Nuclear

My Car: BMW 535d M Sport & Boxster 987.2

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 14425


Location: Higham Ferrers

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HRG we're starting to look at that 2 years ago but didn't take it forward.  I was moving out of the scheme anyway so wasn't that worried, otherwise I would have done if they'd brought it in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BeN
The Motor, Singapore branch.

My Car: Toyota Prius
View My Motor: .

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 11309


Location: Singapore

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob, I broadly agree with you, but the sad thing is that the vast majority of people see driving as just another chore instead of something that requires quite a fair bit of your attention.

I've been driving for 11 years now and other than that one time very early on when I just passed and then proceeded to side-swipe a Suzuki Swift, I've never so much as had an accident. I do take the occasional phone call in the car (hands-free of course) but I also accept that driving is something that needs plenty of concentration. If I feel that at any given moment I am unable to multi-task I put my focus on the main job at hand, which is driving.

I think what is lacking is education and also awareness. People need to know what they are capable of, what their limits are, and not overstretch their abilities.

If you can drive and talk at the same time with no problems, then great for you. But not everyone can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
TreVoR
Nuclear

My Car: Probably Broken

Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 12589



PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think people are perfectly aware of what they are allowed to do or not.  Sadly, I think the issue is people will do whatever they want and everyone else can go fuck themselves.  You can make all the laws in the world and people will still use their phones.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roadsterstu
Nuclear

My Car: threelitreturbosixallwheeldrive

Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 12728


Location: Over there.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
I understand what you are saying, I really do - but experience tends to suggest that people collectively do not step up to the plate when you simply expect them to behave responsibly.


This, by the truckload.  The "public" quite rightly expect high standards of driving from police, bus drivers, taxi drivers, delivery drivers, etc. yet the "public" also wants an awful lot of legal leeway when it comes to their own standards behind the wheel.  The simple fact is that people cannot be trusted. I know you say, "where do you draw the line?" but that applies to everything that we have legislation for - firearms laws, for example.

Alex - a question for you. Shouldn't employers be considering the far wider consequences of their employees being involved in a collision whilst driving on business than using a mobile phone? The risk of Corporate Manslaughter action being taken against company officials, perhaps?
_________________
T6
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob Sacamano
Nuclear

My Car: BMW 320d M Sport Auto

Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 11884



PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roadsterstu wrote:
.  The simple fact is that people cannot be trusted.


Some of us? Most of us? All of us? Only us?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gooner
Twin-charged

My Car: Insignia low tax special and Fiat Panda Eleganza

Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 8923


Location: here, there and every bloody where!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roadsterstu wrote:
Twelfth Monkey wrote:
I understand what you are saying, I really do - but experience tends to suggest that people collectively do not step up to the plate when you simply expect them to behave responsibly.


This, by the truckload.  The "public" quite rightly expect high standards of driving from police, bus drivers, taxi drivers, delivery drivers, etc. yet the "public" also wants an awful lot of legal leeway when it comes to their own standards behind the wheel.  The simple fact is that people cannot be trusted. I know you say, "where do you draw the line?" but that applies to everything that we have legislation for - firearms laws, for example.

Alex - a question for you. Shouldn't employers be considering the far wider consequences of their employees being involved in a collision whilst driving on business than using a mobile phone? The risk of Corporate Manslaughter action being taken against company officials, perhaps?


Fortunately we've yet to see an example of this relating to phones but indeed employers can be made responsible in court if their employees are driving in an unsafe manner at the behest of their employer. The recent case involving the tipper truck that killed a young girl and three adults in Bath is a case in point. The brakes had not been maintained and the young lad behind the wheel was using a route not recommended for HGV's but was considerably shorter than the route a responsible driver would have taken. The driver wasn't punished but his employer was.

In theory the same could happen if a driver of a company vehicle caused an accident whilst taking a business call. Facing multiple death by dangerous driving charges they might seek to defend themselves by pointing the finger at management for not giving them the time to pull over and make their calls or putting too much pressure on them to travel between appointments as well as being responsible for handling customer enquiries. Whether that would ultimately lead to a prosecution against the company I don't know.

But businesses shouldn't just be thinking about the corporate manslaughter side of it. They have a moral obligation to protect the public from the activities of their business and personally I don't think that expecting staff to use a phone whilst driving sits well enough with that basic duty.
_________________


- Insert clever and/or amusing quote here -
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roadsterstu
Nuclear

My Car: threelitreturbosixallwheeldrive

Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 12728


Location: Over there.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob Sacamano wrote:
Roadsterstu wrote:
.  The simple fact is that people cannot be trusted.


Some of us? Most of us? All of us? Only us?


Not really possible to quantify beyond a general "some people" is it? Not you, though, Bob.
_________________
T6
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roadsterstu
Nuclear

My Car: threelitreturbosixallwheeldrive

Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 12728


Location: Over there.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The press seem to have made a thing of this "new law". It is not a new law and it has been in place since 2003 ish. Only the penalty has changed. There is an enormous amount of wittering on Arsebook about it, too.
_________________
T6
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Giant
Supercharged

My Car: It's an Astra. Zzz...

Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 5645



PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roadsterstu wrote:
The press seem to have made a thing of this "new law". It is not a new law and it has been in place since 2003 ish. Only the penalty has changed. There is an enormous amount of wittering on Arsebook about it, too.


My suspicion is that people are making a big thing about the increase in penalty is because they are generally guilty of using their phones whilst at traffic lights etc and the previous penalty / fear of receiving the penalty was small enough for them to take the chance and carry on doing so. This increased penalty has made them fear the consequences and therefore will have to change their behaviour, ergo job done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roadsterstu
Nuclear

My Car: threelitreturbosixallwheeldrive

Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 12728


Location: Over there.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I doubt it will do that much to change behaviour.
_________________
T6
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tim
Nuclear

My Car: is multiplying

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 13134


Location: Over the rainbow

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Giant wrote:
My suspicion is that people are making a big thing about the increase in penalty is because they are generally guilty of using their phones whilst at traffic lights etc....


All you have to do to see if anything has changed is look around you next time you're waiting at lights.
Certainly a couple of months ago you could almost guarantee that 50% of other drivers were engrossed in something in the area of their right knee, you just know they were checking their phone.

Now it's getting lighter in the evenings it'll be easy to if that has changed at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blarno
Cheapskate Know-it-all

My Car: The Flying Glacier Mint

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 17038


Location: The Shores of Hell

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

People are shit and do stupid things. Welcome to earth.
_________________
Sphincteral Twitch: Debut EP "Disastrous Rectal Misfortune" work in progress.

Morbid Obesity: Debut album "Shallow Gravy" due...work in progress.

Spiderpuncher - A seedy trip into electro industrial madness.

Pathway - Punk. Loud. Probably crap.

Giant wrote:
Blarno is right
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roadsterstu
Nuclear

My Car: threelitreturbosixallwheeldrive

Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 12728


Location: Over there.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blarno wrote:
People are shit and do stupid things. Welcome to earth.


That is essentially it.
_________________
T6
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob Sacamano
Nuclear

My Car: BMW 320d M Sport Auto

Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 11884



PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roadsterstu wrote:
Bob Sacamano wrote:
Roadsterstu wrote:
.  The simple fact is that people cannot be trusted.


Some of us? Most of us? All of us? Only us?


Not really possible to quantify beyond a general "some people" is it? Not you, though, Bob.



It just seemed a sweeping generalisation which I know you don't like.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roadsterstu
Nuclear

My Car: threelitreturbosixallwheeldrive

Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 12728


Location: Over there.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ouch. Yes, it was a sweeping generalisation, I accept that. I guess lawmakers have to generalise sweepingly to a certain degree of sweepingness.
_________________
T6
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PhilD
Nuclear

My Car: Fiat Grande Punto Sporting

Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 15807



PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roadsterstu wrote:
. I know you say, "where do you draw the line?" but that applies to everything that we have legislation for - firearms laws, for example.


Indeed. Some times you draw one, some times many. And the lines can move over time

For example going back to Bob's post;

"so we ban alcohol - yes, for under 18s, when driving and operating heavy equipment, at work, etc etc"

Cigarettes - yes for under 16s, in public...

Fatty & sugary foods - already being taxed

limit the drugs and painkillers we are allowed to have in the home - limits to amount an strength of over the counter painkillers.

fit 50mph limiters to all vehicles - Limits for lorries, caravans etc

Fence off all potentially dangerous locations - Building sites, firing ranges..

Ban all extreme sports - BASE jumping banned in cities. Pretty sure train surfing is illegal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nice Guy Eddie
Supercharged

My Car: Porsche 993 C2 & Mercedes C220 Cdi

Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 5440


Location: Farnham, Surrey

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The issues people have with this law is that its not monitored correctly. Why is ok to do a multitude of operations via the touchscreen in my car whilst doing 80mph but it becomes 6 points whilst your stationery at traffic lights and you pick up your phone to move a song forward by clicking one button. Why is it ok to smoke a cigarette when on the move and not press a button on your phone that's attached to the dash. Surely each action is equally dangerous or safe depending on your viewpoint.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin
Nuclear

My Car: BMW 535d M Sport & Boxster 987.2

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 14425


Location: Higham Ferrers

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thankfully my car can display texts and emails on the screen, so I don't need to pick up my phone....I am joking!  Although when I get a text or an email, all I have to do is click on the voice control, say read new message and it's read out to me. Or read it on my watch and use voice control on that to reply....which I honestly don't do when driving.  It's got apps for social media as well, but I don't know how they work.

I plug my phone in under the armrest so it's out of the way, music can be controlled from the MF wheel and/or Sat Nav.

Just agreeing with the above point really, there are loads of ways around the law if you think missing a message, that are equally dangerous, but more difficult to police.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PhilD
Nuclear

My Car: Fiat Grande Punto Sporting

Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 15807



PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin wrote:
Although when I get a text or an email, all I have to do is click on the voice control, say read new message and it's read out to me.


In what voice?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin
Nuclear

My Car: BMW 535d M Sport & Boxster 987.2

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 14425


Location: Higham Ferrers

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I use my normal voice

It's the Sat Nav lady.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tim
Nuclear

My Car: is multiplying

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 13134


Location: Over the rainbow

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PhilD wrote:
Roadsterstu wrote:
. I know you say, "where do you draw the line?" but that applies to everything that we have legislation for - firearms laws, for example.


Indeed. Some times you draw one, some times many. And the lines can move over time

For example going back to Bob's post;

"so we ban alcohol - yes, for under 18s, when driving and operating heavy equipment, at work, etc etc"

Cigarettes - yes for under 16s, in public...

Fatty & sugary foods - already being taxed

limit the drugs and painkillers we are allowed to have in the home - limits to amount an strength of over the counter painkillers.

fit 50mph limiters to all vehicles - Limits for lorries, caravans etc

Fence off all potentially dangerous locations - Building sites, firing ranges..

Ban all extreme sports - BASE jumping banned in cities. Pretty sure train surfing is illegal.


I think there was something called the 'Reasonable Test' when I had to do a bit of law as part of my accountancy studies - "What would a reasonable person be reasonably expected to do?"

I think it's safe to say that looking down into your car for a prolonged period, to select a phone number or type a text, could be considered unreasonable?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PhilD
Nuclear

My Car: Fiat Grande Punto Sporting

Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 15807



PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin wrote:
I use my normal voice

It's the Sat Nav lady.


what is she like?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris M Wanted a V-10
Supercharged

My Car: C-Max'D, CapturD and GOK the Wok

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 7160


Location: Captur'd by 1 5UMO near Camberley. Forum F1 champ 2011 and 2015

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tim wrote:
I think it's safe to say that looking down into your car for a prolonged period, to select a phone number or type a text, could be considered unreasonable?

Not when you are stuck in a traffic jam or at a traffic light that's just turned red
_________________
Wanted a V-10 ; settled for half a V-6
October 2012:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Tim
Nuclear

My Car: is multiplying

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 13134


Location: Over the rainbow

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
Tim wrote:
I think it's safe to say that looking down into your car for a prolonged period, to select a phone number or type a text, could be considered unreasonable?

Not when you are stuck in a traffic jam or at a traffic light that's just turned red


Fair enough but most of the time they then fail to spot the light turning green!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BeN
The Motor, Singapore branch.

My Car: Toyota Prius
View My Motor: .

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 11309


Location: Singapore

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tim wrote:
PhilD wrote:
Roadsterstu wrote:
. I know you say, "where do you draw the line?" but that applies to everything that we have legislation for - firearms laws, for example.


Indeed. Some times you draw one, some times many. And the lines can move over time

For example going back to Bob's post;

"so we ban alcohol - yes, for under 18s, when driving and operating heavy equipment, at work, etc etc"

Cigarettes - yes for under 16s, in public...

Fatty & sugary foods - already being taxed

limit the drugs and painkillers we are allowed to have in the home - limits to amount an strength of over the counter painkillers.

fit 50mph limiters to all vehicles - Limits for lorries, caravans etc

Fence off all potentially dangerous locations - Building sites, firing ranges..

Ban all extreme sports - BASE jumping banned in cities. Pretty sure train surfing is illegal.


I think there was something called the 'Reasonable Test' when I had to do a bit of law as part of my accountancy studies - "What would a reasonable person be reasonably expected to do?"

I think it's safe to say that looking down into your car for a prolonged period, to select a phone number or type a text, could be considered unreasonable?


Unfortunately what is 'reasonable' in today's society seems rather a bit murky now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Roadsterstu
Nuclear

My Car: threelitreturbosixallwheeldrive

Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 12728


Location: Over there.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice Guy Eddie wrote:
The issues people have with this law is that its not monitored correctly. Why is ok to do a multitude of operations via the touchscreen in my car whilst doing 80mph but it becomes 6 points whilst your stationery at traffic lights and you pick up your phone to move a song forward by clicking one button. Why is it ok to smoke a cigarette when on the move and not press a button on your phone that's attached to the dash. Surely each action is equally dangerous or safe depending on your viewpoint.


The reason being that a lot of people don't simply make a simple track change but instead get into texting, watching videos or are engrossing themselves in phone calls. And as a result collisions are occurring. Of course a collision could happen as a result of someone touching the satnav screen but it isn't deemed to be a wide enough problem to warrant a specific offence like phone use. Plus, there are offences to cover lack of attention to driving anyway. It's just that phone use was deemed sufficiently widespread to require deterrent and punishment. Various areas of the law are the same, it has always been the same.


_________________
T6
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum