Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 01:11

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

When on your Cell Phone while driving your car, do you 'picture' the other person ? (2 selections)
Yes, I 'picture' the image of the other party 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
No, I only hear their voice 29%  29%  [ 11 ]
Yes / No, I think it is about about 50:50 voice / image of the person 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Yes, but I have now learned, NOT to 'see' them, my driving is uneffected 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Yes, but I have now learned, NOT to 'see' them, my driving is effected 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
No, but occasionally (around 25%) 'see' them, my driving is uneffected 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
No, but occasionally (around 25%) 'see' them, my driving is effected 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Yes but I believe that my driving concentration is uneffected. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Yes but I believe that my driving concentration is effected. 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
No but I believe that my driving is uneffected 5%  5%  [ 2 ]
No but I believe that my driving is effected 5%  5%  [ 2 ]
I can talk and drive - my driving concentration is uneffected 18%  18%  [ 7 ]
I cannot talk and drive - my driving concentration is effected 11%  11%  [ 4 ]
Other - please explain ..... 24%  24%  [ 9 ]
Total votes : 38
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 17:07 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
Herbie J wrote:
I havent got a clue where you are getting this rubbish from but to humour you, I never mentioned speed limits, in fact if I were to it would be to make speed on open roads less of an issue than many would think, also speed within built up areas would be a serious issue to me because thats where the majority of fatalities occur not on open roads.

Installing software...lol. yeah thats gonna stop all the fatalities and serious injuries caused by such a crazy undertaking isnt it! doh!

Well it will certainly reduce the costs of dealing with spam, a significant drain on the economy, since most of that is sent through infected PCs
Quote:
Its called 'Electrician' not 'Shop' and again you in your wisdom have hit the nail on the head, thats gonna save counless life as only yesterday 3 Brazilians died wiring their TV plug up.It was even brought to George Bush's attention when he said 'My god, thats sad, just how many is a Brazilian?'

You could call out an electrician. Most people would find it cheaper to take it to a shop that has one onsite. Sucks if you're disabled or infirm.
Quote:
Cooking??? Thats a toughy so I'll leave that to the wife.

As your final point which I must say is the only bit appearing sensible

They were all examples of the same thing, dumbing down "dangerous" activities so that people don't get killed, ignoring the fact that many people can perform such activities safely without harming themselves or others. Go watch Idiocracy to see where that leads you (actually, go watch it anyway, it's a good film)
Quote:
Like so many your sentiments are admirable but you overlook facts and logistics.Do you know how many people we are talking about, are you aware how many poor drivers are out there?
A lot
Quote:
Do you know how many police are on duty at any one time?
not enough
Quote:
Do you understand how much time/effort would be required to deal with every case of the poorest driving standards when not related to speeding or crashes?
More than the current lot can be arsed to deal with, that's for certain
Quote:
Do you know how many people are given very very basic training followed by an inadequate test that does not include high speed driving/braking and does not include motorway driving?
Pretty much all of them
Quote:
Do you believe that everyone who passes a driving test is actually good enough to be on Britains roads?
Not at all.
Quote:
I have many years past experience teaching most licence groups and people from all walks of life. You will not stop people scraping through tests and being a complete idiot behind the wheel it can be an Oxford don or Road sweeper. You can only reduce some of the crap on our roads by introducing tougher policing/penalty for clearly identified causes, like mob phone use.You can use the passive softly softly stuff alongside that but the reality is people are being killed, I for one would hapily sacrifice mob phone use for me and everyone if it saved one life
Careful now, that's the exact same argument the pro-speed-camera brigade use.

It's not about saving lives though. If the government actually looked at their own research they'd realise that when people do get distracted, it's the conversation that causes the distraction, not the hand held phone, so why didn't they ban handsfree kits? Because actually enforcing that ban would require some effort, wheras banning handhelds can be enforced with a modified talivan. In the meantime you are telling people that if they use a handsfree kit they are safe. People who would've kept their conversations down to a bare minimum have been told it's ok to gab on the phone for as long as they like. Employers are fitting the kits to company vehicles and are expecting a return on their outlay, so wheras previously company mobile phone policy would be to keep to to essential or emergency calls only they're now just repeating the government message that handsfree is safe. "I was driving" is no-longer a valid excuse for not taking a call once the company fit a handsfree kit.

Quote:
I for one have not used MP on the move for years yet Ive had more training and mileage experience than most . People are addicted to things they feel they need yet dont, like mob phones. Mob phone use has been factually identified as a cause of many crunches ( some horrific ) and everyone using it at the time wasnt thinking that they were doing any harm or that their driving was affected.

If that is true, they should receive a significantly harsher penalty than a standard death by dangerous driving conviction. That's the message you want to get out. If you cause an accident or kill someone because you're on the phone, you are going to be royally fucked and will be looking at jail time. That should be enough to separate the essential calls from the non essential ones.
However most of the research has been conflicting and inconclusive, the government cherry picks and publicises the research that suits what it wanted to do anyway. If such research doesn't exist then it "funds" some research.
Quote:
This should not be worthy of debate but simply accepted. STOP USING MP WHEN DRIVING it wont kill you!

No, but it will kill lots of one or two man businesses. In todays society customers expect someone to answer the phone within 3 rings and wont bother to leave an answering machine message, they'll just go straight to the next one in the yellow pages and that probably costs an awful lot more than a £60 mobile phone fine. When the new vans come out I'm expecting to see a lot of white vans sprouting reflective windscreens (that still let in the required amount of light) since they're also going to be used to get you for eating a sandwich and quite possibly for smoking too.

Also, let me give a recent example of an illegal non-handsfree call that was made recently, obviously not naming names, but this person was driving down the A42 near to where it becomes the M42 when a fencepost-sized chunk of wood fell of the back of a flatbed. Said person immediately called the Highways Agency (via directory enquiries, since they can put you through these days) to report the hazardous debris and they dispatched someone to clear it up. Should they have waited until they got to Tamworth services some 15 minutes later, parked up, switched off their engine (as even having the engine running while using a handheld phone is illegal) and then called the HA? The person who drives into that post a minute before the HA arrived would probably have preferred it if the call were made earlier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 19:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
One ...

I'll freely admit that it may be a fantasy; removing the worst 10% of drivers from the road. It would be hard to determine who these people are once they are licensed. That is why I advocate much tougher educational, training, and licensing standards [than presently enforced]. Then again, this may not be wishful thinking; I am moving to Germany this autumn.

If I had to choose between ridding the driving environment of:
a) one who was capable of driving safely only if [s]he were totally isolated from all distractions
b) one who was capable of driving safely while deciding whether or not to take this call, to include possibly driving while taking this call

I'd get rid of 'a' every time. I'd of course prefer they not be allowed to drive in the 1st place,

Neither the task of driving, nor the driving environment, should not be dumbed down so that everyone can drive. That's a downward spiral America and the UK are flushing ourselves down as we speak.


Two ...

If the conversation is really so dangerous, then why isn't there an epidemic of taxidrivers and couples and families dying as soon as someone starts talking?
Of single car accidents, how many passengers are usually included? (How many of these are nature applying a pound of cure where the government should have applied an ounce of prevention by not licensing this driver prior?)
Where the driver is not alone, what is the typical age of the driver? (Hint: goes to highschool or college)

If more mature drivers can be trusted to speak to one or more passengers than immature drivers, then conversation itself is not to blame, it is the driver's ability to manage distraction ...

which is also managed by passengers, since they are actively cooperating with the driver. (By the way, how old are they?)

The person on the stationary end of a mobilephone is not cooperating at all with the driver, regardless of maturity level. I doubt they are trying to get the driver to crash, but they aren't helping, that's for sure.


Given, as a taxidriver,I also believe that Push2Talk conversations are safer than phone conversations. Why hasn't the government mandated that all handy conversations be Push2Talk?

How difficult would it be to make phones so that they will not operate inside of a car?

I am very nervous of an increasing population of drivers that can't talk and drive at the same time, or can't decide whether or not to do so. An increase in the population of drivers who cannot manage or negate distractions is an invitation for nature to do the job of unlicensing those who shouldn't have a license in the first place, and they will often take someone else out with them. That places the onus on society to raise the driving standard.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 20:03 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
The Rush wrote:
If more mature drivers can be trusted to speak to one or more passengers than immature drivers, then conversation itself is not to blame, it is the driver's ability to manage distraction ...

Bingo! We have a winner!

Quote:
The person on the stationary end of a mobilephone is not cooperating at all with the driver, regardless of maturity level. I doubt they are trying to get the driver to crash, but they aren't helping, that's for sure.

It doesn't need to be such an issue. All it needs is for the driver to say "hang on a sec". They should be planning far enough ahead that for the vast majority of situations you can actually explain why eg. "hold on while I overtake this lorry", put phone down on seat, complete manoeuvre, pull back in, pick up phone, "sorry about that, what were you saying again?". I've never once had a customer complain that I'm being rude by doing that.

Quote:
Given, as a taxidriver,I also believe that Push2Talk conversations are safer than phone conversations. Why hasn't the government mandated that all handy conversations be Push2Talk?

Is there any evidence for that? Any research would be skewed by the fact that the only people who use push2talk systems are highly experienced drivers anyway, and also very good at holding a conversation while driving.
I suspect with push2talk, CB, PMR whatever you want to call it, it's socially acceptable to wait a bit before replying if you're doing a difficult manoeuvre, whereas for cellphone people this delay is not considered acceptable, well not by some at least as I said above it's just fine.

Quote:
How difficult would it be to make phones so that they will not operate inside of a car?

Well you could mandate the installation of jammers I guess, or line the windows with metal to turn it into a gigantic faraday cage, but that will also prevent passengers from making calls, it will mean that even if stopped you'd have to get out in the rain to make a call, and if you have a crash and are trapped in your car, you have to wait for someone to discover you before the emergency services get called. It's a bad idea.

Quote:
I am very nervous of an increasing population of drivers that can't talk and drive at the same time, or can't decide whether or not to do so. An increase in the population of drivers who cannot manage or negate distractions is an invitation for nature to do the job of unlicensing those who shouldn't have a license in the first place, and they will often take someone else out with them. That places the onus on society to raise the driving standard.

Agree entirely.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Push2Talk vs MobilePhone
PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 20:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
Lum wrote:
The Rush wrote:
Given, as a taxidriver,I also believe that Push2Talk conversations are safer than phone conversations. Why hasn't the government mandated that all handy conversations be Push2Talk?

Is there any evidence for that? Any research would be skewed by the fact that the only people who use push2talk systems are highly experienced drivers anyway, and also very good at holding a conversation while driving.
I suspect with push2talk, CB, PMR whatever you want to call it, it's socially acceptable to wait a bit before replying if you're doing a difficult manoeuvre, whereas for cellphone people this delay is not considered acceptable, well not by some at least as I said above it's just fine.
I can only provide my experience as a taxi driver as evidence. Here goes ...

The initial difference between phone conversation and Push2Talk, is that it is theoretically possible for two people to speak and listen to each other at the same time on a phone. Though this is usually impossible in reality for more than a few seconds, it allows a communications breakdown that is by the very nature of Push2Talk, impossible.

However, it is also worth noting that every job that requires Push2Talk also requires at least a brief period of instruction on the etiquette and decorum of its use. Most people who drive while speaking on their handys have so far failed to consider that addtional etiquette and decorum would often enhance the safety of this multitask.

To keep ... myself ... brief, I will finally note that I also know when to shut up, and when to ask my passengers or my dispatcher to 'hold on a sec'. So do my passengers, as well as my friends and family, whether or not they are with me in the car. It's safe to guess, however, that the rest of the population - on the non-driving end of the phone - is not so savvy.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 23:28 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
The Rush wrote:
However, it is also worth noting that every job that requires Push2Talk also requires at least a brief period of instruction on the etiquette and decorum of its use. Most people who drive while speaking on their handys have so far failed to consider that addtional etiquette and decorum would often enhance the safety of this multitask.

To keep ... myself ... brief, I will finally note that I also know when to shut up, and when to ask my passengers or my dispatcher to 'hold on a sec'. So do my passengers, as well as my friends and family, whether or not they are with me in the car. It's safe to guess, however, that the rest of the population - on the non-driving end of the phone - is not so savvy.


So what you're saying is that for those of sufficient skill/education, handling a communication device while driving is fine, and for those without such skill and no education on the matter it's not so safe?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 22:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
By the way, can this "Faraday cage" be de-energized when the vehicle is in neutral or park?
Lum wrote:
The Rush wrote:
However, it is also worth noting that every job that requires Push2Talk also requires at least a brief period of instruction on the etiquette and decorum of its use. Most people who drive while speaking on their handys have so far failed to consider that addtional etiquette and decorum would often enhance the safety of this multitask.

To keep ... myself ... brief, I will finally note that I also know when to shut up, and when to ask my passengers or my dispatcher to 'hold on a sec'. So do my passengers, as well as my friends and family, whether or not they are with me in the car. It's safe to guess, however, that the rest of the population - on the non-driving end of the phone - is not so savvy.


So what you're saying is that for those of sufficient skill/education, handling a communication device while driving is fine, and for those without such skill and no education on the matter it's not so safe?
Unfortunately, not in so few words.

Driving is a skill which requires education; of that there is no doubt. (Actually, driving is in danger of becoming an idiocratic culture, led by a profit-driven minority, which is one of the issues that concern most of us here.) However, I am not merely speaking of the skills required to manage distraction on the driver's part. The entire culture is lacking in the etiquette and decorum required to even consider 'distraction management' a skill. (To wit, programming on the boob toob is becoming more ADD every day.) But when you finally get in the car to drive, "you're too stupid to drive and speak at the same time if the other speaker isn't in the car with you."

The person on the other end of the conversation, if [s]he isn't in the car, probably isn't contributing to the safety of the activity, and may be making the conversation - and thus the drive - more dangerous.

Would you all forgive me for taking the liberty of paraphrasing myself? ...

If more mature drivers can be trusted to speak to one or more mature passengers than immature drivers and immature passengers, then the conversation itself is not to blame, it is the driver's ability to manage distraction, plus or minus the other conversant's or coversants' ability to not contribute distraction[s] ...

Four teenage passengers in the car are usually more dangerous to the driver - regardless of age - than four adult passengers.

(To try to boil it down, "it's not the conversation, it's the conversants" ... ? I know it's not catchy ...)

And don't forget about Push2Talk. I really do believe that the mechanics of the conversation have an affect on it's 'distractability index'.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 06:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
It is the lowest common denominator rules & regs that is the very problem that our gov seem to want to bring us down to :(

Sadly we do not have (as far as I know) push2talk ... unless it is now in a few trial areas - anyone?

If some can manage it and some can't to totally ban is then wrong as it shows a total lack of proper research and understanding of a problem. Just another 'stand and be counting us out some more money' rules & regs - or numeric rules / fines.

If some can manage to solve, then some others can learn. But some maybe unsuitable, however all good drivers realise their own limitations and behave responsibly and refrain.
So as usu. the Gov is left with how to control and sort out the one's that can't and don't realise. So to try to understand how to manage, guide, train and teach the responsibilities that every driver should possess, they don't, they just send out another numeric fine earning system, with lowest common denominator. By simplifying these important safety messages, it leaves drivers of limited abilities, far worse off, and those that could have benefited from the proper messages, missing the point and trying (often failing) to make up their own minds.
Like most things there are levels of understanding, with psychology, science and physics all playing their part.
If Government fail to carry out, or grasp that research in an unbiased manner, and then not act appropriately, then they put innocent lives at risk.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 02:01 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
Push2Talk is available with the Sprint / Nextel networks in Amerika. I'm fairly certain that P2T conversations are treated like 'any other' cellular conversation, which, for all I know, may very well make cellular conversations seem safer than they actually are?
Still, I maintain that the length of the conversation and the subject matter are larger distraction factors, that some people are better at managing distractions than others, that some can be trained, and that the driving environment is polluted with to many of those that either can't, or won't.

DWoDC&A would seem to cover most of the problem.
If 'the defendant' was driving like an inconsiderate and reckless idiot, what does it matter whether or not the phone was in use? He's guilty of inattentive driving, and that's that. Being on the phone doesn't prove anything; but driving like an idiot certainly does.

You can't prevent people from getting fat by banning 'hydrogenated oils' and 'high fructose corn syrup'. There will certainly be benefits to doing so, but the root problems - overeating foods of insufficient nutritional density - hasn't actually been addressed.

Here, the root problem is people's ability to [learn to] manage distraction. I know that seems much simpler to deal - sorry, prescribe - some drug to get the ADHD under control, and get rid of the phone, but it's just whackamole, really.

Psychology and physics are not being allowed to play their parts. The government is understudying those roles badly, and not just when it comes to the driving environment.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 00:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
For Sure. I couldn't agree more as of course Safe Speed, is all about making The Powers That Be, aware of the road Safety Policy failures through it's role as a Pressure Group.

Drivers don't just start driving badly (inattention specifically) a whole range of factors, play a part, encouraged by root causes. It is often these root causes that Policy try's to alter, in the hope of saving lives, but when 'they' get it wrong, they need to face up to it and put things right as quickly as possible. Better to loose face & save a life.

An increase in slip accidents is a prime increasing example of the predictable side effect of Speed Cameras.

There are many new Rules in the UK, that copy this thinking - making small specific rules than address the root cause. Part of this *I* think, is that they can then apply the smaller rules to be applied more automatically and numerically. A Police man is needed to identify 'careless driving' a camera doesn't.
Perhaps they think that speed is the root cause, a prime example of mis-guided thought process, and a lack of physics and driving experiences combination. You have to (be prepared to) understand the whole process, (once also identified), before you can identify root cause.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 16:54 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
It is often these root causes that Policy try's to alter, in the hope of saving lives, but when 'they' get it wrong, they need to face up to it and put things right as quickly as possible. Better to loose face & save a life.

If they admitted they got something wrong surely they would get more respect? Covering up their failings (using our money to do so) and allowing people to die to avoid saying "we're only human" makes them thieving, lying murderers. I'd prefer someone who said "We did wrong. This is what we got wrong and why, and what we're going to do to fix it."

This "push 2 talk" thing, is that like a cheap speakerphone? Speaker on and mic muted until you press the PTT button, then mic is active and speaker muted? Actually that might work quite well with the ex-police speaker-mics I recently acquired... :)

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 23:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
Ziltro wrote:
If they admitted they got something wrong surely they would get more respect? Covering up their failings (using our money to do so) and allowing people to die to avoid saying "we're only human" makes them thieving, lying murderers. I'd prefer someone who said "We did wrong. This is what we got wrong and why, and what we're going to do to fix it."

This "push 2 talk" thing, is that like a cheap speakerphone? Speaker on and mic muted until you press the PTT button, then mic is active and speaker muted? Actually that might work quite well with the ex-police speaker-mics I recently acquired... :)

"If they admitted they got something wrong surely they would get more respect?"
From us, maybe, but not from those who substitute brief emotion for deep thought. The latter need time to forget; they have not been trained in blackwhite and doublethink, and are often keening while their eyes impersonate rivers demanding that something be done.

Until such types are a minority, vigilance over simplistic metrics instead of complex behaviors will rule the day.

Push2Talk ... the 1st version was citizens band radio. You are either talking or listening, never both at once.

When combined with one of the simplest rules for radio use - don't talk and steer, or talk and brake, at the same time - P2T protocols, in my experienced opinion (IMEO), makes conversation while driving much safer.

From there, control of the topic and brevity are shortcuts to safety.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 20:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Ziltro wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
It is often these root causes that Policy try's to alter, in the hope of saving lives, but when 'they' get it wrong, they need to face up to it and put things right as quickly as possible. Better to loose face & save a life.

If they admitted they got something wrong surely they would get more respect? Covering up their failings (using our money to do so) and allowing people to die to avoid saying "we're only human" makes them thieving, lying murderers. I'd prefer someone who said "We did wrong. This is what we got wrong and why, and what we're going to do to fix it."

Yep for sure but they seem unable to do so. Perhaps they fear for their jobs and fear of voters disapproval of the ongoing loss of public funds on a failed policy.

Ziltro wrote:
This "push 2 talk" thing, is that like a cheap speakerphone? Speaker on and mic muted until you press the PTT button, then mic is active and speaker muted? Actually that might work quite well with the ex-police speaker-mics I recently acquired... :)

It's a bit like texting but with voicemail. You send a voice message to someone. Phone alerts you to the new message you pick it up / listen to it when convenient. Then you reply by sending a voice message. So its like a conversation but broken up by convenience.
or that's what I learnt a while back. ! :)
It is reported that it will be in this Country but when I don't know.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 21:41 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
As a point of interest - has anyone seen Mr Loophole's defence of a driver charged with use of a mobile -- he argued successfully that as driver was using the record function , phone was not an interactive device and exempt from the regulations .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Talking to oneself?
PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 22:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
botach wrote:
Anyone seen Mr Loophole's defence of a driver charged with use of a mobile? He argued successfully that as driver was using the record function, phone was not an interactive device, and exempt from the regulations.
Pray, tell, who is Mr LoopHole, and what was the driver recording? If I understand correctly, he was not using his cellphone's phoning function, but some other, nonconversant function instead, while at worst talking to himself?
I suppose he had to go to court to prove this?

Was Mr LoopHole's client charged with Driving w/o Due Care &/or Attention? If he wasn't, doesn't that make driving while phoning a frivolous, if not spurious charge, regardless of whether or not he was in fact phoning?

"I hereby charge you with speaking to someone outside of the car using a rather dodgy contraption."

"How's my driving, officer?"

"Irrelevant."

It's why I quit taxi driving; we've been banned from even using handsfree devices for the past ten years.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 00:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
He is Nick Freeman - known to look into all details and try to ensure that through mistakes and illegalities of procedure he tries to win each case.

I am not (yet) familiar with the case mentioned above.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 : 0.273s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]