Safe Speed Forums

Speaking of talking on mobiles, here's just two of the stupid things people do whilst talking on their mobiles, and I've seen many, many instances of both over the years:

1) Engrossed in a mobile conversation while going down the escalator at the tube station, they step off at the bottom of the escalator and promptly stop in their tracks, with hundreds of people bearing down on them.

2) Similarly engrossed in a conversation while standing in the traffic waiting for the lights to change, and then remaining stood there when the lights do change and the rest of the traffic has disappeared into the distance.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Talking into a mobile phone using hands-free is the same as talking to a companion I would say, in that both are legal. That said, I agree that a companion is likely to be the more dangerous of the two different situations, especially if the she is hot.

It's what I would call an 'in-car' distraction

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Depends on the type and content of the conversation. Talking to a travelling companion is likely to tend towards small-talk, whereas talking to someone the other end of a phone is likely to tend away from small-talk - ie it will tend to tax and occupy one's mind more, especially as the person you're speaking to cannot have the same kind of appreciation for your situation as would a travelling companion.



It's a very long time since I've had that particular pleasure

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I know you're joking, but they already ban far too many things. And they've created far too many absolute and/or technical offences, making it difficult or impossible for the police and judiciary to exercise any sort of discretion. There have been several cases of people being fined for using their mobiles to tell the boss/wife/customer that they'll be late, whilst stuck in long tailbacks where nothing's moving for very long periods.

Bring back common sense, I say.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I've done that and I must admit I see nothing wrong with it so long, and only if, the traffic is very obviously going nowhere. No-one get's more into a hissyfit like me over mob usage in cars but I confess I did it going down the M6 a couple of years ago, although technically I wasn't going anywhere since I was in three lanes of gridlocked traffic.

As you say Pete, there's no discretion and I believe you can be done even if you have pulled over to the side of the road and stopped, unless you have also turned your engine off and the keys are out of the ignition.

On my recent occasion I had enough time to turn the engine off, walk up the embankment and read the Highway Code from cover to cover and still find my car hadn't moved. But woe betide anyone who uses the mob while sitting in the car in that situation!


Here here!

I seem to complain a lot about everything these days and I thought it was because I'm just getting old. But then I read something which said something like 'if everything around you seems to be going wrong maybe it's time to look at yourself'. So I bought a mirror the other day but on reflection I wish I hadn’t. (I should send that one to Tim Vine).

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I bought myself a decaffeinated coffee table.

And I'm wondering what occasional furniture is the rest of the time


I think we've drifted sufficiently OT now

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I agree. Unlike some on here I do support the mobile phone law, but I believe it should be restricted to "moving vehicles". I have occasionally made a phone call myself with the engine running when stationary in a horrendous jam, and I really fail to see what's wrong with that.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

The debate regarding the semantics of the words homicide and homicidal have been split into this thread.

Seem to remember that the mobile phone law defines a parked car - so it also makes a good defence against being done for parking- i.e stop at the kerb, just keep engine on /don't apply handbrake - oh ,the permutations are endless .

_________________
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

Look what just happened to be on the MSN front page a minute ago!

http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/luc ... deo_module

Interestingly the link on the front page mentioned something about a "speeding truck" and then the caption on the video itself talks about the pedestrian pulling off some "ninja-like" moves to dodge the truck...

...judge for yourselves, but I think the "lucky escape" was ENTIRELY down to the driver's vigilance!

There's also that famous video (which I can't find any more) of the teenage lad vaulting over a safety barrier right into the path of a bus. Clearly the idea of it "always being the driver's fault "(or even responsibility) is not likely to deliver the same safety benefits as if it is viewed as a shared responsibility. It will, however, generate very significant revenue for the "ambulance chasers"!

As a quick aside, I don’t think MCN gets the praise and adulation it deserves quite often.

It is a great mag for people interested in road and traffic matters, legislation etc. but I expect most drivers just think of it, (if at all), as just a biker mag.

My only criticism is that it can be a bit Daily Mail’ish with some of the articles and news.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

There were various mistakes here - inattention and total un-awareness by both parties.
Ped know that if they simply walk onto the road - it can be dangerous even fatal, we are all likely have been taught this from an early age. Unless he was suicidal, he probably didn't intend to forgetfully just step into the road without checking.
Drivers know that not paying adequate attention can be dangerous even fatal to themselves &/or others.
Both have responsibilities to uphold and both parties clearly failed in this objective.
Very little info is stated about the road or why the driver failed to observe the ped's potential action.

The driver we can be pretty sure had no intention of killing another person.
We do not know if suicide was the ped's intention but commonly not.
Did the compensation occur just because it could(as suggested earlier - could falling down steps cause similar injuries).

Edited to add - I added the above back in after the thread split, but as it happens it is equally true of the second case (msn video link) mentioned - although the second case the lad looks earlier and misjudges the vehicle developments and timings and never looks again. All he did was at the very last minute stop in his tracks. I can only assume that the truck driver in that film fails to see him, because his attention is on the van that is in front of him is definitely stopping (to his right). One may assume too that the ped only see that the van is stopping and so fails to consider that the truck behind the van is a potential threat too!

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

I think you are being a little unfair to the driver, here, claire.

The truck driver probably saw the guy on the pavement and start to cross, the ped then looks up, stops his cross, "staggers" back onto the pavement , THEN decides to cross. Now I would have been more wary if it had been an animal or small child attempting to cross but can you honestly say that if you saw a "adult" ped start to cross, look up and see you, then return to the pavement that you would even half expect him to return to the road in front of you? (mind you he does appear to be totally drunk or drugged up.)

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

If true, this sounds like a prime case for careless driving. However, it is telling that the driver seemingly wasn't done for it (the only mention about any penalty is that of the insurance company). So I do wonder about the level of blame that can be placed upon the driver in this case.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign