I still use the street directory or the map for long distance.
I will admit to having the street directory on the steering wheel while at the red light and while smoking a cigaretter
Cell phone ban for drivers!
- Thread starter Access_guy49
- Start date
I still use the street directory or the map for long distance.
I will admit to having the street directory on the steering wheel while at the red light and while smoking a cigaretter
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
If it is illegal to do this when driving they would not have to prove that you were driving dangerously, see post #10
Brian
RCheesley
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 243
I don't profess to be any kind of expert in law, but I believe the backing behind it being illegal to use anything which distracts you from driving is that it causes you to drive without due cause and attention, and therefore driving dangerously.
I merely suggest that if a case came to court and the car was stationary in traffic, it would be interesting to hear the prosecution and defence; given that the vehicle would be stationary (and hence, I suspect, not likely to be a risk to others).
Mind you, it's possible to be arrested for intention to drive while under the influence if you walk towards your parked car after a few beers with your keys in your hand, even if you were just going to get a coat out of the boot.
*shrug*
I merely suggest that if a case came to court and the car was stationary in traffic, it would be interesting to hear the prosecution and defence; given that the vehicle would be stationary (and hence, I suspect, not likely to be a risk to others).
Mind you, it's possible to be arrested for intention to drive while under the influence if you walk towards your parked car after a few beers with your keys in your hand, even if you were just going to get a coat out of the boot.
*shrug*
Mind you, it's possible to be arrested for intention to drive while under the influence if you walk towards your parked car after a few beers with your keys in your hand, even if you were just going to get a coat out of the boot.
*shrug*
That would depend on where the car was parked and also the time etc. as that would determine whether the intention was to drive the car as opposed to going to the car to collect something from the car.
A car is a pretty good Faraday Cage that causes the mobile to transmit at a much higher, or even maximum, power level. All this high power microwave radiation, being reflected all around the inside of your car, isn't too healthy for the brain cells.
If you used a jammer, again you would require high power microwave radiation.
In my opinion, cars and mobiles are an absolute no, for health reasons as well as road safety.
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
In the case of mobiles the law is 100% clear , if the engine is running you are driving, I cannot speak for other cases but I know that people have been successfully prosecuted for drinking ( non alcoholic) whilst waiting at traffic lights so suspect that the same rule applies.
I know the policeman in the station where my daughter took her particulars to said the guy could and maybe should have just given her a warning in the circumstances, but legally she was committing an offence.
Brian
- Local time
- Today, 17:55
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,365
In the USA, my home state of Louisiana has take up the ban on cell phones but instituted a couple of exceptions.
1. Hands-free devices allowed.
2. Special exception: To report an emergency even if no hands-free device available.
Considering that it was only a couple of years ago that we passed a "no open container" law in our state, I consider this a pretty advanced act by our legistators.
I can honestly say I've never seen an accident caused by someone talking on a cell phone, though I've read about them in the newspaper here. More often, we have accidents caused by having a ditzoid in the driver's seat. And I've seen my share of THOSE accidents. In fact, my wife's accident from a couple of years ago was caused by a ditzoid driver with (as we say here...) a big picking-up truck and slick-soled sandals.
- Richard
1. Hands-free devices allowed.
2. Special exception: To report an emergency even if no hands-free device available.
Considering that it was only a couple of years ago that we passed a "no open container" law in our state, I consider this a pretty advanced act by our legistators.
I can honestly say I've never seen an accident caused by someone talking on a cell phone, though I've read about them in the newspaper here. More often, we have accidents caused by having a ditzoid in the driver's seat. And I've seen my share of THOSE accidents. In fact, my wife's accident from a couple of years ago was caused by a ditzoid driver with (as we say here...) a big picking-up truck and slick-soled sandals.
- Richard
Access_guy49
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 18:55
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 462
Ok, riddle me this batman!
when listening to the news, it was stated that a study was conducted and found that using a handheld phone while driving impared vision and reflex to the same level as a person driving with the maximum legal amount of alcohol in their system.
that being said, how does that law make sense... (it's ok to drive a little impared, but if your at the same level of impared due to use of an electronic device that's no good) The fact is it's the same level of distraction, why can one be considered ok and the other not!?
As a second note, I have listened to the radio many times, here in London (ontatio, not the big London), we have a station called FM96, the guys in the morning can be really funny and i have been driving to work while crying from laughter, Do we ban radio? how about a ban on laughing while driving, i'm sure laughing until you cry is just as bad as driving with a cell
when listening to the news, it was stated that a study was conducted and found that using a handheld phone while driving impared vision and reflex to the same level as a person driving with the maximum legal amount of alcohol in their system.
that being said, how does that law make sense... (it's ok to drive a little impared, but if your at the same level of impared due to use of an electronic device that's no good) The fact is it's the same level of distraction, why can one be considered ok and the other not!?
As a second note, I have listened to the radio many times, here in London (ontatio, not the big London), we have a station called FM96, the guys in the morning can be really funny and i have been driving to work while crying from laughter, Do we ban radio? how about a ban on laughing while driving, i'm sure laughing until you cry is just as bad as driving with a cell
Len Boorman
Back in gainfull employme
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 1,930
Re Brian's daughters situation.
This very clearly shows that in this country unfortunately we have become obsessed with meeting targets. These are targets purely for say number of motoring convictions.
So using a mobile whilst stationary but with engine running is an easy hit and one nearer the target.
Now also I have heard where police will not attend a burglary if there are no obvious signs of who committed the act. I suppose they expect a visitors card. You see that crime becomes difficult to solve. Therefore do not attend, do not record and thus the crime clear up rate is not adversly affected.
We are unfortunately ruled at the moment by a bunch of idiots. Not only the Government but also people in powerful administrative positions.
Never use common sense seems to be the byword today.
Re the phones thing.
It would be nice to have a crime entitled "Behaving like a Pratt"
For this crime the Judge may impose a suitable punishment. In a real society this crime would replace all others and one would only ever be convicted of a single offense. One for which you could be charged more than once.
The problem is that it would require people not to acts as prats for most of the time. This is where it all falls down I think.
Not my idea but from James May's column in the Telegraph.
L
This very clearly shows that in this country unfortunately we have become obsessed with meeting targets. These are targets purely for say number of motoring convictions.
So using a mobile whilst stationary but with engine running is an easy hit and one nearer the target.
Now also I have heard where police will not attend a burglary if there are no obvious signs of who committed the act. I suppose they expect a visitors card. You see that crime becomes difficult to solve. Therefore do not attend, do not record and thus the crime clear up rate is not adversly affected.
We are unfortunately ruled at the moment by a bunch of idiots. Not only the Government but also people in powerful administrative positions.
Never use common sense seems to be the byword today.
Re the phones thing.
It would be nice to have a crime entitled "Behaving like a Pratt"
For this crime the Judge may impose a suitable punishment. In a real society this crime would replace all others and one would only ever be convicted of a single offense. One for which you could be charged more than once.
The problem is that it would require people not to acts as prats for most of the time. This is where it all falls down I think.
Not my idea but from James May's column in the Telegraph.
L
Pauldohert
Something in here
- Local time
- Today, 15:55
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 2,101
And she still couldn't be bothered to pull over to make the call legally? Where was the copper who did her?
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
As I said on another thread you don't read the posts, just so that you can see it
SHE WAS STUCK IN A TRAFFIC JAM, HADN'T MOVED FOR 40 MINUTES
grow up Paul
Brian
Pauldohert
Something in here
- Local time
- Today, 15:55
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 2,101
What was to stop her parking up at the side of the road before making/taking the call?
Where was the copper again?
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
This will be the last time I reply to you.
How can you pull over to the side of the road , double yellows on the East Lancs by the way, when stuck in a traffic jam.
Copper?, as I said you have difficulty reading or taking on info, try post 17 again.
Bye
Brian
How can you pull over to the side of the road , double yellows on the East Lancs by the way, when stuck in a traffic jam.
Copper?, as I said you have difficulty reading or taking on info, try post 17 again.
Bye
Brian
Pauldohert
Something in here
- Local time
- Today, 15:55
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 2,101
Your right Brian - I didn't read that. I apologise. Maybe its cos when I understand you prefectly you still say I haven't read it , that it seemed pointless to bother.
In that case she was seriously unlucky.
Though the line has to be drawn firmly somewhere, or all kinds of people would try to blur it.
Yes they should have had something better to do, in this instance.
In that case she was seriously unlucky.
Though the line has to be drawn firmly somewhere, or all kinds of people would try to blur it.
Yes they should have had something better to do, in this instance.
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
Apology accepted Paul, I know I said I was not going to reply but it now seemed churlish not to.
We should draw a line under the bickering and accept that we perhaps didn't communicate well on the language thread.
Brian
We should draw a line under the bickering and accept that we perhaps didn't communicate well on the language thread.
Brian
KenHigg
Registered User
- Local time
- Today, 18:55
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 13,327
Now Brian... Anyone that can't figure out how to turn their green light on can't be the sharpest tool in the shed to begin with -
Last edited:
Pauldohert
Something in here
- Local time
- Today, 15:55
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 2,101
Yep -cheers, I can go with that. A badly communicated differance of opinion over car tax and the usefulness of languages shouldn't be a real problem, for either of us.
Rich
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 23:55
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,898
Just how else is this Nazi police state going to raise extra taxes?
