 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / July 2008Driver using hands-free phone caused fatal crash
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2201008/Driver-using-hands-free-phone-cau sed-fatal-crash.html Four and a half years - sh.t it aint worth it. > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2201008/Driver-using-hands-free-phone-cau sed-fatal-crash.html > > Four and a half years - sh.t it aint worth it. I am not trying to lessen the tragedy of this, but ... "Roger Vincent, a spokesman for RoSPA, urged the government to impose a blanket ban on making phone calls whilst driving, saying the current laws banning the use of hand-held mobiles failed the address the issue." Roger Vincent fails to address the practicality. Such a ban would be completely unenforceable, as you can't tell just by looking that someone's on a hands-free phone. As we have seen, being on the phone can be considered as an aggravating circumstance. So only introduce new legislation if it is both effective AND enforceable. > So only introduce new legislation if it is > both effective AND enforceable. Let me know when *that* starts, would you?  Signature"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one." [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk] >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2201008/Driver-using-hands-free-phone-cau sed-fatal-crash.html >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > considered as an aggravating circumstance. So only introduce new > legislation if it is both effective AND enforceable. If something is banned outright, a lot fewer drivers will do it. Sure, there will still be those idiots who continue to do it, but then the law can come down on them harder. I see no reason whatsover why a phone call needs to be done while driving. I don't believe at all that calls must be made for business reasons - such calls can be made while stopped at a service area or end of the drive. If businesses stop their employees from making calls on the move, then that would remove the pressure on workers to use a phone while driving. Anyone can see the problem for themselves. While driving talk about the drive - what you see and what you are going to do about it. On another occasion, talk about anything but the drive, and you will see your concentration has dropped. SignatureMrBitsy Rover 75 CDTi > If something is banned outright, a lot fewer drivers will do it. <cough>ollocks. Exceeding 70mph on the motorway is banned outright. >> If something is banned outright, a lot fewer drivers will do it. > > <cough>ollocks. > > Exceeding 70mph on the motorway is banned outright. If the speed limit on motorways was removed, would you expect an increase or decrease in the number of drivers doing >70mph? "PM" <pm@m_.com.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> If something is banned outright, a lot fewer drivers will do it. >> <cough>ollocks. >> >> Exceeding 70mph on the motorway is banned outright. > If the speed limit on motorways was removed, would you expect an > increase or decrease in the number of drivers doing >70mph? I wouldn't expect any change. >>> If something is banned outright, a lot fewer drivers will do it. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or > decrease in the number of drivers doing >70mph? Nothing much would change. You might see the quick boys cruising slightly higher than 100 rather than just below it, but that's all IMO. Mike P >> If something is banned outright, a lot fewer drivers will do it. > > <cough>ollocks. > > Exceeding 70mph on the motorway is banned outright. I didn't say all, I said fewer. SignatureMrBitsy Rover 75 CDTi > >> If something is banned outright, a lot fewer drivers will do it. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I didn't say all, I said fewer. You said "a lot fewer", it's difficult to see how the ban on exceeding 70 has worked. A majority of drivers exceed 70, surely if the ban were effective that would be a minority, not a majority? >> If something is banned outright, a lot fewer drivers will do it. > > <cough>ollocks. > > Exceeding 70mph on the motorway is banned outright. Yes , and as a result , lots of drivers stay at or below the limit. Plenty ignore it by varying degrees , but if there was no limit I know a lot more people would be going faster than 70 SignatureAlex "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away" www.drzoidberg.co.uk > Yes , and as a result , lots of drivers stay at or below the limit. > Plenty ignore it by varying degrees , but if there was no limit I know a lot > more people would be going faster than 70 Name them. > Yes , and as a result , lots of drivers stay at or below the limit. > Plenty ignore it by varying degrees , but if there was no limit I know a lot > more people would be going faster than 70 Like the majority that potter along at 60-65MPH now? Are they suddenly going to be doing over 70 when currently they don't drive anywhere near that? SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >>> If something is banned outright, a lot fewer drivers will do it. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Plenty ignore it by varying degrees , but if there was no limit I know a > lot more people would be going faster than 70 I don't think many would cruise much above a tonne though. The fuel consumption gets a bit silly once you do. >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2201008/Driver-using-hands-free-phone-cau sed-fatal-crash.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > about it. On another occasion, talk about anything but the > drive, and you will see your concentration has dropped. I have no doubt that any talking with passengers whilst driving, whatever the subject, reduces a drivers concentration on the road. Admitted most conversation in cars is perfectly safe, as one normally stops talking in a traffic situation that needs particular care, but talking on a mobile phone is not the same. One tends to concentrate more than when talking to passengers, so from a safety POV I think mobile phones should be made illegal to use unless the vehicle is stationary. Whether the engine is running or not should be irrelevant. As an aside. AIUI the purpose of driving commentaries is to assess a drivers awareness of potential hazards, and draw attention to any they may have missed, and hopefully that will improve their overall ability to 'read the road'. If a driver is already well aware of potential hazards, having to point them out as they drive is an additional task to that of driving on it's own. Any additional task means thaughts must be shared between those req'd for driving alone, and those req'd for giving the commentary. Mike. > > Roger Vincent fails to address the practicality. Such a ban would be > > completely unenforceable, as you can't tell just by looking that someone's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the move, then that would remove the pressure on workers to use a phone > while driving. And make my job a complete pain the arse to do. I can drive along for hours at a time, whilst on the phone, and not do anything even remotely dangerous. Why should we have to introduce new laws to cope with the small minority of people who really shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place? I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with probably half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to return every call (some calls need an immediate answer), then I'd become incredibly inefficient and increasingly pissed off with pulling over to answer simple questions. You may personally consider it dangerous, but we've already concluded that you're not a natural driver and have had to work very hard, taking on extra tuition to reach what most of us would consider to be competent. > Anyone can see the problem for themselves. While driving talk about the > drive - what you see and what you are going to do about it. On another > occasion, talk about anything but the drive, and you will see your > concentration has dropped. Talking about 'the drive' is exceptionally dull and only considered by people of below-par driving ability. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Ducati 750SS - Hongdou GY200 Alfa 75 TSpark - Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE > I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with probably > half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to return every > call (some calls need an immediate answer), then I'd become incredibly > inefficient and increasingly pissed off with pulling over to answer > simple questions. So how did you manage before mobile phones were invented? >> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with probably >> half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to return every [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > So how did you manage before mobile phones were invented? Having been a field engineer in the days just before mobiles were common, we used pagers.Then we'd have to find a payphone or use a customer's desk phone to call head office back. Total and utter pain in the arse. We were given Nokia 1011s in 1995, it was the best thing that ever happened! Mike P > >> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with probably > >> half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to return every [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to call head office back. Total and utter pain in the arse. We were given > Nokia 1011s in 1995, it was the best thing that ever happened! I wasn't in field management in the days before mobile phones, but a colleague used to work in field sales for Coca Cola. He had to check his head-office based voice mail on a regular basis throughout the day. Bit of a bastard if you're half an hour away from an appointment, having already driven for a couple of hours, when you pick up a message telling you it has been cancelled.... SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Ducati 750SS - Hongdou GY200 Alfa 75 TSpark - Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE >>>> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with >>>> probably half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I wasn't in field management in the days before mobile phones, but a > colleague used to work in field sales for Coca Cola. So you truly are a mere brat. That explains much. > He had to check his head-office based voice mail on a regular basis > throughout the day. > > Bit of a bastard if you're half an hour away from an appointment, > having already driven for a couple of hours, when you pick up a > message telling you it has been cancelled.... Indeed, but in those days there was less inclination to cancel meeting on a whim. (Which isn't to say that meetings were not cancelled.) >>> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with >>> probably half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > in the arse. We were given Nokia 1011s in 1995, it was the best thing > that ever happened! How did you cope before pagers? >>>> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with >>>> probably half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> that ever happened! > How did you cope before pagers? f.cks knows, I'm not *that* old :-) Mike P >>>>> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with >>>>> probably half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > f.cks knows, I'm not *that* old :-) Hmm, another brat. :-) It makes you wonder how some of the people who whinge about not being allowed to use a mobile phone whilst driving would have coped in the days when commercial travellers used public transport because cars were too expensive. >>>>>> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with >>>>>> probably half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > when commercial travellers used public transport because cars were too > expensive. I'm old enough to still be amazed when someone shows me a mobile phone that apparently is "sh.t" yet has 1GB of memory, a camera and plays music. When I was a lad, a phone had a round dial thing and a bell. I remember being totally amazed when our posh neighbours got a trimphone that made a "noise like a bird"... Since I stopped working as a field engineer 10 years ago, I can count on one hand the number of times I've used a phone while driving though, and two of them were *absolutely* neccessary Mike P >>>>>> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with >>>>>> probably half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to >>>>>> return every call (some calls need an immediate answer), then I'd >>>>>> become incredibly inefficient and increasingly pissed off with >>>>>> pulling over to answer simple questions. >>>>> So how did you manage before mobile phones were invented? >>>> Having been a field engineer in the days just before mobiles were >>>> common, we used pagers.Then we'd have to find a payphone or use a >>>> customer's desk phone to call head office back. Total and utter pain >>>> in the arse. We were given Nokia 1011s in 1995, it was the best >>>> thing that ever happened! >>> How did you cope before pagers? >> f.cks knows, I'm not *that* old :-) > Hmm, another brat. :-) > It makes you wonder how some of the people who whinge about not being > allowed to use a mobile phone whilst driving would have coped in the days > when commercial travellers used public transport because cars were too > expensive. That would be a very long time ago. "Commercial travellers" were frequently issued with motor cars during the 1930s (assuming they could drive, or could be taught to drive). There can't be many mobile sales jobs where the paid time of the employee is valued so poorly by the employer that there is no question of it being made more efficient. > That would be a very long time ago. "Commercial travellers" were > frequently issued with motor cars during the 1930s (assuming they could > drive, or could be taught to drive). Not that being taught to drive involved a lot at the time. MY grandfather was taught to drive at the time by doing a circuit of the Co-op goods yard, and was later handed an HGV licence because there was a war on and no one was available to do the tests. > Not that being taught to drive involved a lot at the time. MY > grandfather was taught to drive at the time by doing a circuit of the > Co-op goods yard, and was later handed an HGV licence because there was > a war on and no one was available to do the tests. See if they did that now there would be less of as problem with unlicensed drivers on the road, and darwinism would take care of the inadequate ones. Would look good on the police crime cleanups too. SignatureCarl Robson Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >> That would be a very long time ago. "Commercial travellers" were >> frequently issued with motor cars during the 1930s (assuming they could [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Co-op goods yard, and was later handed an HGV licence because there was > a war on and no one was available to do the tests. What war would that be? HGV licensing started in 1969 I know because I had one of the first ones. NM ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>>That would be a very long time ago. "Commercial travellers" were >>>frequently issued with motor cars during the 1930s (assuming they could [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > HGV licensing started in 1969 I know because I had one of the first ones. 1935 to 1937 http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/contacts/dvla_timeline.pdf >>>> That would be a very long time ago. "Commercial travellers" were >>>> frequently issued with motor cars during the 1930s (assuming they could [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 1935 to 1937 > http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/contacts/dvla_timeline.pdf No mention of HGV on this link, your information is for an ordinary D/L. Though on reflexion I may not be 100% accurate with the date year but it was around this time give or take a year or two. NM NM ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>>>>That would be a very long time ago. "Commercial travellers" were >>>>>frequently issued with motor cars during the 1930s (assuming they could [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Though on reflexion I may not be 100% accurate with the date year but it was > around this time give or take a year or two. Third column, second paragraph. 1935: HGV and provisional licences are introduced over the next two years. >>>>>> That would be a very long time ago. "Commercial travellers" were >>>>>> frequently issued with motor cars during the 1930s (assuming they could [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Third column, second paragraph. 1935: HGV and provisional licences are > introduced over the next two years. Then it is incorrect, may be it was a proposal that got dropped around the wartime, I wasn't around then. Certainly there was no HGV when I started driving. Long after the war I had been driving trucks for several years on a red D/L there was a cut off date by when one had to apply for the new HGV , if the application was after that date then 'grandfather rights' could not be claimed and the applicant had to take the newly introduced HGV test. This was widely reported in the trade press and I believe the national newspapers. Search for archives of the trade paper 'Motor Transport' it's bound to be in there. I'm not that befuddled yet that I don't remember, although the exact date is escaping me (I think 1969 or 1970). I have never in my life taken a test for a heavy truck and the first HGV I have ever had was issued in the way I described, prior to that I had a red book D/L endorsed for cars and motorcycles by the way of; cars, a stick in label and bikes, a rubber stamp. I suggest you also check with either or both the Road Haulage Association or the Freight Transport Association, if you continue to doubt veracity and feel it's important enough. NM ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** [ ... ] >>>>>> ... MY >>>>>> grandfather was taught to drive at the time by doing a circuit of the >>>>>> Co-op goods yard, and was later handed an HGV licence because there was >>>>>> a war on and no one was available to do the tests. >>>>> What war would that be? >>>>> HGV licensing started in 1969 I know because I had one of the first ones. >>>> 1935 to 1937 >>>> http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/contacts/dvla_timeline.pdf >>> No mention of HGV on this link, your information is for an ordinary D/L. >>> Though on reflexion I may not be 100% accurate with the date year but it >>> was around this time give or take a year or two. >> Third column, second paragraph. 1935: HGV and provisional licences are >> introduced over the next two years. > Then it is incorrect, may be it was a proposal that got dropped around the > wartime, I wasn't around then. Certainly there was no HGV when I started > driving. > Long after the war I had been driving trucks for several years on a red D/L My late father did the same. As long as the vehicle's owner trusted you, you could drive a lorry on an "ordinary" licence. This too was well after WW2. > > Third column, second paragraph. 1935: HGV and provisional licences are > > introduced over the next two years. > > Then it is incorrect, may be it was a proposal that got dropped around the > wartime, I wasn't around then. Certainly there was no HGV when I started > driving. Bollocks: http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Category.asp?cat=343 1 Jan 1940: HGV licences and tests are suspended during World War Two. 18 Feb 1947: A period of a year granted for wartime provisional licences to be converted into full licence without passing the test. That was the period in which my grandfather obtained his HGV licence, and then retained it after the war. The HGV test was changed in 1969, one of the big changes being that vehicle inspectors could no longer act as the examiner for HGV tests: 4 Aug 1969: An up-to-date scheme is introduced for licensing and testing new lorry drivers: But those who had obtained a licence by being given one on demand did not have to apply to be retested. >>>No mention of HGV on this link, your information is for an ordinary D/L. >>>Though on reflexion I may not be 100% accurate with the date year but it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Then it is incorrect, may be it was a proposal that got dropped around the > wartime, I wasn't around then. It certainly existed, it was not just a proposal. >Certainly there was no HGV when I started driving. Where and when was that then? > Long after the war I had been driving trucks for several years on a red D/L > there was a cut off date by when one had to apply for the new HGV , if the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Search for archives of the trade paper 'Motor Transport' it's bound to be in > there. Long after 1969 you could drive HGV's without taking an HGV test. HGV means over 3.5 ton(nes). >>>> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with >>>> probably half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> that ever happened! > How did you cope before pagers? Carrier pigeon? Basically, work rates were a lot lower then, with fewer calls per day and more likelihood of something untoward happening which couldn't be easily mitigated. It's called productivity. In a competitive world, if one person is making calls while on the road, everyone else needs to in order to stay in the game. I'm not condoning or condeming the practice, just pointing out the way of the world. >>>>> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with >>>>> probably half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I'm not condoning or condeming the practice, just pointing out the > way of the world. I quite accept that of one is then everyone else is almost forced to. I had a mobile phone in the early nineties. It was like carrying a brick around with about ten minutes talk time and a stonking big bill every month. Handy when trying to find a place and you've only got half the address. "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Having been a field engineer in the days just before mobiles were >> common, we used pagers.Then we'd have to find a payphone or use a >> customer's desk phone to call head office back. Total and utter pain in >> the arse. We were given Nokia 1011s in 1995, it was the best thing that >> ever happened! > How did you cope before pagers? Is there anybody still working now that goes back that far...? I distinctly recall my old man having a pager back in the '70s. Wasn't exactly "Oh, wow, look at this miracle of technology", even then. Ah - invented in 1956. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pager > "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ah - invented in 1956. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pager How about laptops? I remember as a kid in the early '80's my dad brought a portable terminal home and I was blown away by the fact that it had a little accoustic coupler which unfolded and strapped to the telephone. I'd only just seen 'Wargames'... SignatureAbo >> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding >> much [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > little accoustic coupler which unfolded and strapped to the telephone. I'd > only just seen 'Wargames'... Ahh but he (not your dad) still managed to nearly start a "thermo-nuclear war". Just as well that computer (wapper ? ) also came loaded with noughts and crosses ... bit a luck that :o) > Just as well that computer (wapper ? ) also came loaded with noughts and > crosses ... bit a luck that :o) Wasn't it W.O.P.R ? (Can't recall what it stood for, mind) >> Just as well that computer (wapper ? ) also came loaded with noughts and >> crosses ... bit a luck that :o) > > Wasn't it W.O.P.R ? (Can't recall what it stood for, mind) War Operations Planned Response , and that's without googling SignatureAlex "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away" www.drzoidberg.co.uk >>>> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with >>>> probably half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> that ever happened! > How did you cope before pagers? Things move on though Brim, including the expectations of customers. Years ago companies seemed more willing (able) to wait for a couple of days while their photocopier or vending machine or whatever was fixed, and companies were more likely to stick to appointments. But these days like you say, meetings are changed on a whim and they want their stuff fixing yesterday. I suspect mobile phone are at least partially both the cause of and the solution to this... SignatureAbo >>>>> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with >>>>> probably half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I suspect mobile phone are at least partially both the cause of and > the solution to this... Indeed, there is much of the "We can, therefore we will" mentality. > How did you cope before pagers? It's only called "coping" when it's denied, so asking how people coped before mobiles is meaningless in the context of using them in a car. Or, if you prefer, the same way as we "coped" without cars, and the same was as we're "coping" now without quantum lawnmowers (I'm sure they're just a few years away) SignatureChris >> How did you cope before pagers? > > It's only called "coping" when it's denied, so asking how people coped > before mobiles is meaningless in the context of using them in a car. Use what ever word you prefer to indicate that people then did the same jobs as they do now but then did not have the use of mobile phones, pagers ot any other gadget. The vast majority of people understand colloquial English. If you don't then I suggest that you get out and meet people. But on the whole, I couldn't give a damn. > Or, if you prefer, the same way as we "coped" without cars, and the > same was as we're "coping" now without quantum lawnmowers (I'm sure > they're just a few years away) Why use a lawnmower when a scythe is quicker? > >> How did you cope before pagers? > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you don't then I suggest that you get out and meet people. But on the whole, > I couldn't give a damn. Nevertheless you continue to post about it. How did you cope before the Internet, eh. SignatureChris >>>> How did you cope before pagers? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Nevertheless you continue to post about it. How did you cope before > the Internet, eh. The same as I do now. >> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with probably >> half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to return every [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > So how did you manage before mobile phones were invented? I used to be a Field Engineer - prior to mobile phones. Simple pager, and had to find a payphone - yes it was a pain. But when mobile phones came along, I got a lot more calls - meaning more disruption to my working day! SignatureClive We don't die, we just stop paying taxes. >>> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with probably >>> half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to return every [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But when mobile phones came along, I got a lot more calls - meaning more > disruption to my working day! C5 buyers? SignatureAbo >>>> I probably spend around half my working day in the car, with probably >>>> half of that spent on the phone. If I had to pull over to return every [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > C5 buyers? Who in their right mind would buy a Citroen? >> > Roger Vincent fails to address the practicality. Such a ban would be >> > completely unenforceable, as you can't tell just by looking that [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Talking about 'the drive' is exceptionally dull and only considered by > people of below-par driving ability. Steve - I hope you have the best possible hands free kit in your car. I get really annoyed when I see a flashy / expensive car - with the driver using a handset. I mean - it isn't as though they can't afford a hands free kit. They can't even be trying to show off that they have got a phone - why do they do it in their Cayenne's, Bentleys, Mercs, etc?. Surely they have the most to lose if they get banned. > Steve - I hope you have the best possible hands free kit in your car. I have a wired in Nokia CK-7W, which was great when I had a Nokia phone. I now use a Parrot sunvisor kit, which is equally as good, to be fair. Just a pain having to remember to charge it up. Don't know what will go in the new car in September - depends if I buy my own with opt-out money or order a company car. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Ducati 750SS - Hongdou GY200 Alfa 75 TSpark - Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE > I get really annoyed when I see a flashy / expensive car - with the > driver using a handset. I mean - it isn't as though they can't afford > a hands free kit. They can't even be trying to show off that they > have got a phone - why do they do it in their Cayenne's, Bentleys, > Mercs, etc?. Surely they have the most to lose if they get banned. Just because someone is driving a vehicle it doesn't mean it's theirs nor even that they're driving it for any great length of time. I used to deliver cars all over the country and would only drive the car once, from pick up point to delivery point and any make or model from a Mini to a 7.5t via a Rolls-Royce. That's not to excuse someone driving and phoning at the same time. Merely an explanation of why they might not have a handsfree kit. "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> I get really annoyed when I see a flashy / expensive car - with the >> driver using a handset. I mean - it isn't as though they can't afford a >> hands free kit. They can't even be trying to show off that they have >> got a phone - why do they do it in their Cayenne's, Bentleys, Mercs, >> etc?. Surely they have the most to lose if they get banned. > Just because someone is driving a vehicle it doesn't mean it's theirs > nor even that they're driving it for any great length of time. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and phoning at the same time. Merely an explanation of why they might > not have a handsfree kit. BOLLOCKS. Bluetooth hands-free. Less than £20, and smaller than the average remote- control car key. And that's assuming you didn't get a wired hands-free in the box with the damn phone. > "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > And that's assuming you didn't get a wired hands-free in the box with > the damn phone. I was thinking of a fixed set-up rather than a portable with which I'm not familar. (BTW - Yours or a clean pair?) "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>> I get really annoyed when I see a flashy / expensive car - with the >>>> driver using a handset. I mean - it isn't as though they can't afford >>>> a hands free kit. They can't even be trying to show off that they >>>> have got a phone - why do they do it in their Cayenne's, Bentleys, >>>> Mercs, etc?. Surely they have the most to lose if they get banned. >>> Just because someone is driving a vehicle it doesn't mean it's theirs >>> nor even that they're driving it for any great length of time. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> driving and phoning at the same time. Merely an explanation of why >>> they might not have a handsfree kit. >> BOLLOCKS. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> And that's assuming you didn't get a wired hands-free in the box with >> the damn phone. > I was thinking of a fixed set-up rather than a portable with which I'm > not familar. IOW "Oops, you're right. I f.cked up. Sorry"...? If you're not even vaguely familiar with the concept of wired or bluetooth hands-frees, which cave have you been hiding in for the last five years? > (BTW - Yours or a clean pair?) A sweaty hairy pair. > > I was thinking of a fixed set-up rather than a portable with which I'm > > not familar. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bluetooth hands-frees, which cave have you been hiding in for the last > five years? I wouldn't even bother with an earpiece these days - my previously mentioned Parrot kit was under 50 quid and the quality rivals most fixed installations. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Ducati 750SS - Hongdou GY200 Alfa 75 TSpark - Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > I wouldn't even bother with an earpiece these days - my previously > mentioned Parrot kit was under 50 quid and the quality rivals most fixed > installations. Even ignoring my preference for earpieces over installed kits, how easy is it to move between cars...? Or do I have to buy several...? > steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Even ignoring my preference for earpieces over installed kits, how easy > is it to move between cars...? Or do I have to buy several...? It just clips onto the sunvisor and uses a mini-USB lead to charge it. So takes seconds to move. http://www.expansys.com/p.aspx?i=146711 SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Ducati 750SS - Hongdou GY200 Alfa 75 TSpark - Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> > I wouldn't even bother with an earpiece these days - my previously >> > mentioned Parrot kit was under 50 quid and the quality rivals most >> > fixed installations. >> Even ignoring my preference for earpieces over installed kits, how easy >> is it to move between cars...? Or do I have to buy several...? > It just clips onto the sunvisor and uses a mini-USB lead to charge it. > > So takes seconds to move. > > http://www.expansys.com/p.aspx?i=146711 Ah, gotcha. I've got one of these... http://www.expansys.com/p.aspx?i=163256 except the "panel speaker" is monumentally sh.t, even as a speakerphone in the office, let alone in the relatively calm and quiet environment of the 900 (I've not even _attempted_ to use it in the 2cvs...) - so I just use the earpiece bit. One of these - http://www.expansys.com/p.aspx?i=163369 Much, much better than the sh.t Plantronics which came foc with my chavberry - very disappointed, I expected Plantronics to be good - but I do miss the Moto - wonder where I misplaced it...? Might have left it in the XM when I sold it. > steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Even ignoring my preference for earpieces over installed kits, how easy > is it to move between cars...? Or do I have to buy several...? You can take a visor-mounted unit from vehicle to vehicle as easily as anything else you can carry about your person. The only drawbacks are that it is easy to forget it when getting out of the vehicle and that it requires the occasional charge-up. >>> I was thinking of a fixed set-up rather than a portable with which I'm >>> not familar. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mentioned Parrot kit was under 50 quid and the quality rivals most fixed > installations. The kit installed in the Vectra Elite is excellent. There is an attachment panel in the centre console for which you can get a various cradles for different phones. It is also bluetooth. I've got my K800i connected to it and the kit reads your phone book, last calls dialled etc. and you can access it all via the central display using either the centre console or steering wheel controls. It is also voice controlled which works well enough. Sound comes through the speakers and although people can tell you're on a handsfree they've never complained they can't understand me; I've spoken to Rachel on it while she is driving the car and I think the sound quality out of the carkit is good. I've also got a bluetooth in the Sony headset in my 306. Again, incoming sound is great but people complain they can't hear me all that well and I suspect it's a combination of a stupid mic positioning on the head unit (behind the snap-off front panel???) and the crappy Halfords faceplate adapter being a bit creaky which I haven't got round to replacing with something a bit more solid. What's nice is that the phone will automatically detect which car it is in and connect to the handsfree. So no messing about with manual connections... SignatureAbo > "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > IOW "Oops, you're right. I f.cked up. Sorry"...? No, wrong again. > If you're not even vaguely familiar with the concept of wired or > bluetooth hands-frees, which cave have you been hiding in for the last > five years? I don't use mobile phones. >> (BTW - Yours or a clean pair?) > > A sweaty hairy pair. OK, so yours. "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>> I used to deliver cars all over the country and would only drive the >>>>> car once, from pick up point to delivery point and any make or model >>>>> from a Mini to a 7.5t via a Rolls-Royce. That's not to excuse >>>>> someone driving and phoning at the same time. Merely an explanation >>>>> of why they might not have a handsfree kit. >>>> BOLLOCKS. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> And that's assuming you didn't get a wired hands-free in the box with >>>> the damn phone. >>> I was thinking of a fixed set-up rather than a portable with which I'm >>> not familar. >> IOW "Oops, you're right. I f.cked up. Sorry"...? > No, wrong again. Mmm-hmmm... >> If you're not even vaguely familiar with the concept of wired or >> bluetooth hands-frees, which cave have you been hiding in for the last >> five years? > I don't use mobile phones. Perhaps better not to dive in with your opinion on mobile phone accessories, then? >>> (BTW - Yours or a clean pair?) >> A sweaty hairy pair. > OK, so yours. <fx: jiggles> > "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Perhaps better not to dive in with your opinion on mobile phone > accessories, then? Which I did where exactly? "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>>>> I used to deliver cars all over the country and would only drive >>>>>>> the car once, from pick up point to delivery point and any make or >>>>>>> model from a Mini to a 7.5t via a Rolls-Royce. That's not to >>>>>>> excuse someone driving and phoning at the same time. Merely an >>>>>>> explanation of why they might not have a handsfree kit. >>>>>> BOLLOCKS. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>> And that's assuming you didn't get a wired hands-free in the box >>>>>> with the damn phone. >>>>> I was thinking of a fixed set-up rather than a portable with which >>>>> I'm not familar. >>>> If you're not even vaguely familiar with the concept of wired or >>>> bluetooth hands-frees, which cave have you been hiding in for the >>>> last five years? >>> I don't use mobile phones. >> Perhaps better not to dive in with your opinion on mobile phone >> accessories, then? > Which I did where exactly? Just up there. See? It's still left unsnipped, but the relevant bit is below. >>>>>> Merely an explanation of why they might not have a handsfree kit. > "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Just up there. See? It's still left unsnipped, but the relevant bit is > below. Nope, I can see nothing that looks like an opinion on anything let alone the relative merits of mobile phones and their gadgets. > >> IOW "Oops, you're right. I f.cked up. Sorry"...? > > > No, wrong again. > > Mmm-hmmm... He'll be posting "Whoosh" and trying to claim he was making an incredibly clever point that went over your head next. > "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: [snip] > > I used to deliver cars all over the country and would only drive the car > > once, from pick up point to delivery point and any make or model from a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > BOLLOCKS. Indeed, pathetic, stupid drivel. > Bluetooth hands-free. Less than £20, and smaller than the average remote- > control car key. > > And that's assuming you didn't get a wired hands-free in the box with the > damn phone. The last couple of phones that I have had have been supplied with a hands free bluetooth earpiece. The devices support handsfree dialling as well as accepting incoming calls. I've seen pillocks drivign cars with the same model phone yacking on the handset, so lack of availability of a handsfree device isn't the excuse. >> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng02@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, >> sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > with the same model phone yacking on the handset, so lack of > availability of a handsfree device isn't the excuse. Which part of "used to" escaped your gnat like attention? > BOLLOCKS. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And that's assuming you didn't get a wired hands-free in the box with the > damn phone. Exactly. Or you have a car stereo like my Sony one which has bluetooth and will work as a handsfree kit. There simply is no excuse nowadays. SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams >> > Roger Vincent fails to address the practicality. Such a ban would be >> > completely unenforceable, as you can't tell just by looking that [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > laws to cope with the small minority of people who really shouldn't be > behind the wheel in the first place? It's not a matter of coping with the small minority of people who really shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place. It's to cope with those that are normally good drivers but don't have an acceptable level of concentration when driving and using hands-free that perhaps you do. > > I can drive along for hours at a time, whilst on the phone, and not do > > anything even remotely dangerous. Why should we have to introduce new [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > acceptable level of concentration when driving and using hands-free that > perhaps you do. Why penalise those who can because some can't? The ones who can't can easily be prosecuted under existing legislation. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Ducati 750SS - Hongdou GY200 Alfa 75 TSpark - Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE >> > I can drive along for hours at a time, whilst on the phone, and not do >> > anything even remotely dangerous. Why should we have to introduce new [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Why penalise those who can because some can't? I don't want to be killed by one thanks! > The ones who can't can easily be prosecuted under existing legislation. Too late by then. "DubDriver" <dubsdrive5@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Why penalise those who can because some can't? > I don't want to be killed by one thanks! But it's OK to be "killed" by an incompetent twat who's retuning the radio, rummaging in the passenger door pocket for a kleenex, talking to a passenger, reading the newspaper, doing their makeup, picking their nose, eating - or just plain in cloud-cuckoo land? > "DubDriver" <dubsdrive5@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > passenger, reading the newspaper, doing their makeup, picking their nose, > eating - or just plain in cloud-cuckoo land? I presume it would be in the public's interest to tackle first those that are proven to cause the most accidents. No matter, I'm happy for them to deal with the things on your list first, then hands-free. > > "DubDriver" <dubsdrive5@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are proven to cause the most accidents. No matter, I'm happy for them to > deal with the things on your list first, then hands-free. Fuckwits who shouldn't be on the road are more likely to cause an accident than someone who is perfectly able to make a hands-free phone call and drive at the same time. All of the above, including use of hands free can be dealt with using existing legislation. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Ducati 750SS - Hongdou GY200 Alfa 75 TSpark - Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE >> > "DubDriver" <dubsdrive5@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like >> > they were saying: >> > >> >>> Why penalise those who can because some can't? Why should my safety be penalised for your advantage and for the advantage of those drivers whoes capabilities to do both at the same time remain an unknown danger. >> >> I don't want to be killed by one thanks! >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > accident than someone who is perfectly able to make a hands-free phone > call and drive at the same time. True, but what are they to do about those that are perfectly good drivers but lose concentration whilst using hands-free at the same time? As an example, I'm a good cook. But I can't cook and talk, I'll usually burn something! My mate's a good cook, but he can cook, talk and juggle six sauce pans at the same time and everything always turns out perfect! > All of the above, including use of hands free can be dealt with using > existing legislation. How does existing legislation deal with perfectly capable drivers that lose concentration while using hands-free at the same time? "DubDriver" <dubsdrive5@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>> Why penalise those who can because some can't? >>> I don't want to be killed by one thanks! >> But it's OK to be "killed" by an incompetent twat who's retuning the >> radio, rummaging in the passenger door pocket for a kleenex, talking to >> a passenger, reading the newspaper, doing their makeup, picking their >> nose, eating - or just plain in cloud-cuckoo land? > I presume it would be in the public's interest to tackle first those > that are proven to cause the most accidents. Nah, "Speed Kills" seems to fit their posters better. "DubDriver" <dubsdrive5@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> But it's OK to be "killed" by an incompetent twat who's... >> rummaging in the passenger door pocket for a kleenex > I presume it would be in the public's interest to tackle first those > that are proven to cause the most accidents. No matter, I'm happy for > them to deal with the things on your list first, then hands-free. Oh, and btw... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2200099/Hayfever-sufferer-killed- motorcyclist-with-sneeze.html > "DubDriver" <dubsdrive5@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2200099/Hayfever-sufferer-killed- > motorcyclist-with-sneeze.html I presume this act of nature isn't a hay fever gadget he bought for his own gains without any thought of it's effect on his driving safety. > If something is banned outright, a lot fewer drivers will do it. Sure, there > will still be those idiots who continue to do it, but then the law can come > down on them harder. I see no reason whatsover why a phone call needs to be I use my mobile with a hands-free kit. Why would it suddenly become idiotic to do so when the law changes? Unless you're saying it's idiotic to do so at all? If you are saying that then I don't see how the logic doesn't also apply to car stereos, controls such as air blowers, carrying passengers or providing commentary to retired police officers. Indeed I don't see where you can draw a line as to what is driving and what is distracting. However knowing you as I do, I'm sure you'll be able to lecture me and anyone else about this without letting supporting material get in the way. SignatureChris >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2201008/Driver-using-hands-free-phone-cau sed-fatal-crash.html >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > considered as an aggravating circumstance. So only introduce new > legislation if it is both effective AND enforceable. You can stand by the main road roundabout near where I live and see lorry drivers and car drivers including women drivers gabbing away into hand held mobiles while driving. Regards Mike. > "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > You can stand by the main road roundabout near where I live and see lorry > drivers and car drivers including women drivers gabbing away into hand held > mobiles while driving. > Regards Mike.- Hide quoted text - I saw an idiot driving whilst drinking from a bottle of water at a roundabout at first the car appeared to be going straight on but turned left > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2201008/Driver-using-hands-free-phone-cau sed-fatal-crash.html > > Four and a half years - sh.t it aint worth it. More the fact that people in general are just f.cking dumb: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2200099/Hayfever-sufferer-killed-motorcyc list-with-sneeze.html> Lisa Badham-Moore, 35, veered into oncoming traffic when she took her eye off the road to reach for a tissue in the passenger door compartment.' SignatureAbo >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2201008/Driver-using-hands-free-phone-cau sed-fatal-crash.html >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Lisa Badham-Moore, 35, veered into oncoming traffic when she took her eye > off the road to reach for a tissue in the passenger door compartment.' "Passenger Door Pocket" Blimey she would hardly he able to see out of the windscreen if bent over that far (unless very small car) > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2201008/Driver-using-hands-free-phone-cau sed-fatal-crash.html > > Four and a half years - sh.t it aint worth it. It was the driver to blame and not the phone. McK. > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2201008/Driver-using-hands-free-phone-cau sed-fatal-crash.html > > Four and a half years - sh.t it aint worth it. OK, the use of hand-held phones while driving is illegal, talking on a hands-free set is not. Drivers can, however, be prosecuted if they drive dangerously whilst distracted by a hands-free call..... So what is going wrong and why are peoplel still using hand held calls? For a law to be successful, it has to be a. Policed b. Have sufficient punishment to deter law breakers Either does no seem to happen. Yes, you will still get someone using a Handheld phone with a potential 20 year prison sentence, but fewer would commit the offence. All these extra Police promised and high tech ANP cameras - surely they can spot a person on a mobile phone - most day to day drivers can! SignatureClive We don't die, we just stop paying taxes. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.