Discussion in 'transport' started by hash tag, Mar 11, 2014.
That video actually demonstrates how they are NOT designed to be used while driving.
Ignoring last two posts, it's just wrong. You have to take your eyes off of the road for far to long to operate them.
For the air con, I guess, you have to come out of the screen you are in, then find the air con option, then you have to adjust all the right areas with the right temperatures and then the right flow after that return to the screen you just left...far too much while you are driving.
However there are lots of inconsistencies fallacious concepts of what constitutes dangerous or reckless behaviour in the law, which is why I’ve always been an advocate of pragmatism and common sense when it comes to applying it. And it deeply pisses me off when I hear about cases where a driver was penalised by an overzealous rozzer for a preposterous infraction.
Using one hand to take a couple of bites off an apple while stationary or even crawling a few metres forward at walking pace while queuing at a congested traffic lights is simply not dangerous at all in most circumstances.
Touching the screen of a smartphone correctly positioned on the dashboard that is *solely* being used as a satnav is blatantly no worse safety-wise than touching a purpose-built satnav device, regardless of the law saying you cannot do the former because it could also be used as a telecommunications device.
Yet one regularly reads about drivers being done for it, mostly in circumstances that are about as reckless as blinking at the wheel. That’s why any copper who actually issues a fine for either of those scenarios is a cunt in my book, and anyone who suggests such fines are always justified because the law says such actions are dangerous shows little comprehension of actual risk assessment imo.
Texting or calling while holding the phone in your hand is a cunt’s trick of course, and infractors should be punished and punished good.
Hey, guess what.....
Driver's shock as 'potty is emptied out of car window'
Complainant was foreign. Fake poos.
That's nothing to do with being a motorist, it's about living in the right postcode and having a load of money. No doubt she knows someone who can pull strings, because a normal person would have got a much heavier sentence.
It's ironic that she's an advocate for road safety.
Excellent cyclist whataboutery, though
How on earth is it even possible in this country to be disqualified for 10 days? Has there even been such as short disqualification before? Whatever happened to one year, six months or even two weeks?
Here's guessing the defendant is going on holiday just as the ban is due to start, and by an amazing coincidence the driving ban will have expired by the time her plane lands back at Heathrow.
There were definitely strings pulled. It's as if she sat with the judge and told him how she'd like to be punished, whilst they both threw darts at pictures of homeless people.
I used to work in care, looking after adults with autism and challenging behaviour. We were coming back after taking two of the clients out for a day out, I was in the back with a 24 y/o guy who was doubly incontinent and very, very athletic. As we are driving down the road he decides that he doesn't want to wear his now very wet nappy, before I fully realise what's going on he rips it off and flings it out the window. This would have been bad enough but he flung it directly into the back of the head of the poor pedestrian who happened to be walking along at the time.
I'm not proud to admit that by the time I'd explained what had happened to the driver we were a fair distance away and we jointly decided that we would not go back and apologise (partially because my charge was getting quite excited and difficult to handle) nor would we tell anyone at work. I do feel sorry for the poor guy that got splatted though.
If he'd hit a cyclist with it Spymaster would have bought you a drink, a double most likely.
Separate names with a comma.