Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 00:39

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 21:46 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9246
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Ziltro wrote:
Pretty much. But try explaining that to Mr. Police officer... :lol:

I've had a thought...

If using a mobile phone while driving causes you to drive dangerously or not be in control of the vehicle then you are already committing an offence.

So this law is only for penalising people who can use them safely. :x


But have you noticed that people using mobiles slow down and hence very rarely exceed the speed limit - so how can they be other than safe drivers - :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 00:45 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
Ziltro wrote:
willcove wrote:
...but does not define what is meant by a two-way radio

Yes it does:
Quote:
(d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is designed or adapted -

(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages; and

(ii) to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and


CB radios are exempt. Everything is exempt except mobile phones. Including tetra handhelds. Which work (or can work) as mobile phones. It is a stupid law. Very stupid law. Completely pointless.


Awesome. So if I install something similar to Skype on my Nokia 9300 that then send the voice to my Car PC over Wireless which in turn relays it to my works mobile in the glovebox via bluetooth then it will be legal to hold the 9300 to my ear. A mode of operation I find far safer than buggering about with handsfree kits.

Since the offence is to hold the mobile phone while driving and I have adapted my 9300 to relay voice on a frequency which is not on the banned list, it is no longer a mobile phone.

You know I might actually do this just to annoy them. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 09:34 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
Lum wrote:
Awesome. So if I install something similar to Skype on my Nokia 9300 that then send the voice to my Car PC over Wireless which in turn relays it to my works mobile in the glovebox via bluetooth then it will be legal to hold the 9300 to my ear. A mode of operation I find far safer than buggering about with handsfree kits.

Since the offence is to hold the mobile phone while driving and I have adapted my 9300 to relay voice on a frequency which is not on the banned list, it is no longer a mobile phone.

You know I might actually do this just to annoy them. :)

I did start my reply with "Er, No! - if it's capable of operating on a banned frequency, then it's a mobile phone." However, I've taken another look:
The Regs wrote:
(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.


(d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is designed or adapted -
  1. for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages; and
  2. to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz


So, if your device is designed to transmit and receive spoken messages and designed to operate on any frequency other than those listed it is (for the purpose of these regs) a two-way radio and so exempt from the ban. Note that this does not say that if it also operates on a forbidden frequency it is not a two-way radio - all that is required is that it operates on at least one frequency that is not banned.

Now I have a Nokia 6210i. This is designed for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages and designed to operate (although not exclusively) on the Bluetooth band (2,400 - 2500 MHz -ish), which is not within a forbidden frequency range. Therefore it is a two-way radio and I am permitted to use it hand-held. I suspect that the same applies to any Bluetooth phone. Even better would be hybrid VoIP/GSM phones like the Samsung SGH-P200 because that they are explicitly designed to use WiFi hotspots where available.

However, Sussex Police disagree with the above. They say in answer to the question, "I've heard that two-way radios can be used, is that true?"
Quote:
Only if the radio cannot be used as a mobile phone. What’s more, it makes no difference if the radio can be used as a mobile phone but is only used as a radio: it is still illegal. If using the radio causes distraction drivers can still be prosecuted.
So be warned. I suspect that the it will eventually be up to the courts to decide whether to interpret the regs strictly or pragmatically.

That said, I've never felt safe using my "two way radio" hand-held and since the advent of Bluetooth have had all my vehicles fitted with a hands-free kit that has a small microphone stuck on the A-pillar near the sun-visor, a two button switch stuck to the dash, and uses the car stero's speakers. When I change phones, I just need to pair the new phone with the car kit (rather than rip out the old and fit a new one).

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 19:53 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
Quote:
If using the radio causes distraction drivers can still be prosecuted.

That sounds more like they are talking about due care and attention/etc. possibly assuming all mobile phone use to be dangerous.

I wouldn't expect a police web site to be correct. :)

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dangerous drivers
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 23:46 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 23:42
Posts: 620
Location: Colchester, Essex
zak wrote:
willcove wrote:
zak wrote:
One could take your hand off for signalling or gearchanging of course but after a delay there would be no power to the wheels.

So, I take one hand off the wheel to use the shifter/overdrive to control my descent of a steep hill. I reach the steepest bit when the system disengages drive from my road wheels :yikes:

No doubt there are other places (like bends) where losing drive would be extremely dangerous.
-------------------------
You would only lose drve if you were to continue to drive with one hand.
Do you drive one hand,esp on a bend?
Such a system is already being tested in Sweden.
(It is an offence to drive with one hand,you are not in proper control of the vehicle,the steering wheel is designed for two hands.)
Such a device does not take away your control of the car,or take away your rights etc of freedom.it is a safety device that will remind you that you are driving without proper control.You will not lose control,the car will just slow down and prevent you from driving in such a sloppy and dangerous manner.

What a load of codswallop. There are roads in this country that require continual gear selection and, even if rally trained like me, the left hand is seldom on the wheel.
If you must place a 'gizmo' in the car to stop drivers using mobiles on the move, why not disable the phone instead of the car? An override for voice only/bluetooth is not beyond the realms of current technology, but disabling the car is the consideration of someone who should hang up their keys and restrict themselves to public transport, as the responsibility of being a driver is obviously far beyond them, let alone (heaven forbid) actually trying to enjoy themselves behind the wheel.
To me, driving my car should always carry a sense of pleasure and acheivement as it becomes an extension of myself in its correct use.
You seem to see a car as, primarily, a lethal weapon and your fear and lack of self-reliance should preclude you from ever entering one as anything other than a passenger...

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dangerous drivers
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 15:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:28
Posts: 12
[quote willcove]
You seem to see a car as, primarily, a lethal weapon and your fear and lack of self-reliance should preclude you from ever entering one as anything other than a passenger...[/quote]
Well a car is often used as a weapon.There is nothing like a car to advertise to the world your character or personality,one can often judge the intelligence and character of the driver by the way he or she drives.
The car is an extension of oneself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 16:29 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 15:14
Posts: 420
Location: Aberdeenshire
I chose my cars carefully, but I don't chose them as a weapon?

I don't plan to kill anyone using it as a tool to aid my destructive power :?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dangerous drivers
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 19:56 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
zak wrote:
MGBGT wrote:
You seem to see a car as, primarily, a lethal weapon and your fear and lack of self-reliance should preclude you from ever entering one as anything other than a passenger...

Well a car is often used as a weapon.There is nothing like a car to advertise to the world your character or personality,one can often judge the intelligence and character of the driver by the way he or she drives.
The car is an extension of oneself.

That may be, but referring back to the original point, such a “hands-on” system will not prevent, or even reduce the occurrence of cars from being used as a weapon, deliberately or inadvertently.


edited cos Zak hasn't yet got to grips with the quote tags :)


Last edited by Steve on Wed Dec 06, 2006 22:09, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dangerous drivers
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 22:06 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
zak wrote:
willcove wrote:
You seem to see a car as, primarily, a lethal weapon and your fear and lack of self-reliance should preclude you from ever entering one as anything other than a passenger...

Oi :x I didn't write that :nono:

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 22:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
Having just caught up with this thread - I missed it before, and I am appalled that anybody would even consider such a stupid idea.

The premise about the problem is complete garbage - the number of hands on the wheel is completely immaterial to the ability to control it. Yes when the original advanced driving books came out, they said it was important (especially for the weak armed), because without power assisted steering you did need two hands for control, but as Richard Burns demonstrated in a broadcast rally stage you can easily drive a power assisted car with complete control with just one hand on the wheel, and when the commentator asked about him only using his left hand on the wheel during the complete sequence RB said that his right hand was better utilised for the gear shift and he didn't need it on the wheel as power steering makes it "so easy these days" (the Rally car is Left Hand Drive).

The premise about cutting power as a "solution" however is absolutely crazy, and could only have ever been suggested by somebody who hasn't got a clue about driving and crash causes. The biggest problem for me is lift-off over-steer.

I suspect that lift-off over-steer contributes to a large number of loss of control accidents and is simply caused by "lifting-off" the throttle during a corner. When this happens there is a weight shift forward in the car and the front wheels grip harder and the back ones loose grip; if the car is borderline "going too fast for the conditions", then it is tipped over the edge, the back-end swings out violently and the car spins completely out of control (unless you can control it and most people cannot). Too fast for the conditions could be 20mph with a diesel spill, wet leaves or ice, but if the spin is into an oncoming vehicle, bus queue, or group of cyclists, then the consequences are horrendous.

The proposed system is going to cut power - the exact cause of lift-off over-steer, and it is going to be unexpected when it happens. I am absolutely certain that such a system will be the direct cause of a large number of deaths. Never mind the motorway carnage when a driver triggers it while reaching for a sweet, and is clipped by the tailgater behind causing the first car to swing into an adjacent lane...

From the technical side however the implementation is dead easy, and exactly the same as the rev-limiter in all modern cars. The ECU just has to cut the fuel.

If such a concept was even necessary (which it isn't), then the sensible action would be the sounding of a beep at a moderate volume (such as many cars have if you exceed 10 mph without the seat belt done up). Cutting power to the engine is criminally insane, and the creators deserve the million dollar lawsuit that will inevitably result.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:29 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
zak wrote:
The reaction generated on this forum to this seems to confirm the lack of intelligence and arrogance of some of todays drivers who have little concern for safety!


You are the one who cannot or will not answer one simple question.

Do you drive?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 01:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 00:06
Posts: 301
Location: Swindon
Yes, come on Zak. Do you drive?

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 16:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:28
Posts: 12
Nos4r2 wrote:
Yes, come on Zak. Do you drive?

Yes,been driving for 40 years,the device in this discussion is not my idea as many of you seem to suggest.
I would not want it fitted to my car.
The idea behind this is to prevent "one hand driving" providing a warning to keep both hands on the wheel,this would stop all the illegal use of mobile phones,and would ensure that you drive properly.
The driver would be aware of the device so would not try and drive around bends or other hazards without full control of the steering.
It has already been endorsed a success.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 19:02 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Wow, that was a long time to think up a reply!

I hover a helicopter with one hand, would two hands be safer do you think?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 22:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 20:28
Posts: 1267
Location: not too far in front, not too far behind.
RobinXe wrote:
Wow, that was a long time to think up a reply!

I hover a helicopter with one hand, would two hands be safer do you think?


It depends what you are doing with the other hand? :D

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 23:39 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Hey, I'll do anything to get a good flying report :P


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.222s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]