TopCat
Putin fanboy
Why not insist that all users of radios have hands free then?
Stasi tactics to stop mobile phone use
- Thread starter stowpirate
- Start date
Why not insist that all users of radios have hands free then?
Whatever. Still doesn't change the fact that this law is a sensible one. Which is all I'm arguing.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Oh dear...The light goes drink? A curious Freudian slip. You sure you should be driving at all?
The law in this case is wrong though isn't it? Perhaps many other drivers who start a conversation whilst at the lights would continue it when it goes green. I can honestly say on the few occasions when the mobile has been within reach and I was stopped at a lights and I chose to answer it, I always ended the conversation (abrutly if necessary) when the light started to change or was about to.
Put it this way. If the 'being in charge of the vehicle' charge stands, then should people be also penalised for opening their glove compartment to look for something while stopped at the lights? It sure is against the law to do so when the vehicle is moving.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Dont they have two in police car ?One to drive one to use radio.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
The enforcement of the law is daft as it's being carried out by police who break the spirit of that law every day.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Are you being daft? Have you never seen a police car with only one occupant?
So unless a cop is absolutely blemish free, they shouldn't be able to impose the law in any sense?
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Stick your straw man up your fundament.
So, I reiterate that the police enforcing laws against mobile use is ridiculous given their use of PMR radios.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
You shouldn't take your hands off the wheel and the eyes off the road to change the radio station, open the armrest to look for a CD or check the glove comparment for kleenex either while "at the wheel".
So would you advocate fining people who do just that while stopped at a red lights? Yes/no?
I didn;t think it was a strawman, I'm sorry you do.
If you're right, it still doesn't mean this law isn't a sensible one. The problem is with the lack of a law governing the cops, doesn't mean this law is a bad one.
So you're still creating a situation where unless a new law is passed to govern the cops, the existing law shouldn't be enforced. Which is bobbins.
No, because the nature of a two way conversation is very different from, for example, picking a tissue out of a box.
Don't be a pillock.
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
It breaks the law as currently drafted, I suppose. And I suspect the closing of any possible loopholes ("No, you honour. I was stationary when the officer saw me") had nothing to do with the legislation being drafted like this
I see enough cunts driving at speed using mobiles to be realistic enough to see that the guy using his mobile stopped at the lights whilst still paying attention to them is not the guy that's likely to kill me.
This is akin to nicking people driving just over the limit for speeding, whereas the guy driving dangerously is less likely to be nicked as its harder to prove and not as clear-cut as "I saw him with a phone to his ear inside a car".
IMO People using a mobile in a car isn't the problem, its people using a mobile in a moving car that can kill and maim when their attention drifts for a few moments.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
I think that was meant to be a joke
I am having a bit of a difficult day and am missing jokes, am jumping to conclusions and keep grabbing the wrong end of the stick.
OK, fine.
So:
Scenario A: Current situation:
law enforced against public - increased road safety.
law not enforced against cops etc - still road safety risks.
Scenario B: And you're suggesting instead a situation where:
law NOT enforced against public because it's not a level playing field with cops etc - still road safety risks.
law not enforced against cops etc - still road safety risks.
Am I missing something in seeing how scenario B is better than scenario A?
TopCat
Putin fanboy
That's wrong because smoking dope turns you into a clueless hippy
I never said anything about smoking whilst on the move just skinning up. It's alright to skin up if you steer with your knee yes?
It breaks the law as currently drafted, I suppose. And I suspect the closing of any possible loopholes ("No, you honour. I was stationary when the officer saw me") had nothing to do with the legislation being drafted like this
I see enough cunts driving at speed using mobiles to be realistic enough to see that the guy using his mobile stopped at the lights whilst still paying attention to them is not the guy that's likely to kill me.
This is akin to nicking people driving just over the limit for speeding, whereas the guy driving dangerously is less likely to be nicked as its harder to prove and not as clear-cut as "I saw him with a phone to his ear inside a car".
IMO People using a mobile in a car isn't the problem, its people using a mobile in a moving car that can kill and maim when their attention drifts for a few moments.
But there's surely going to be a high degree of overlap between these two groups of people? And if someone is dumb enough to drive whilst at speed, they're probably dumb enough to continue a call when the lights change
No, because you're still preparing a joint which, when smoked, will turn you into a tedious hippy twat.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Scenario 1:
Police are held accountable to electorate.
People are more likely to obey law.
Scenario 2:
Police enforce laws that they themselves do not obey.
People express contempt for police.
I myself don't often use my mobile whilst driving and have not crashed a car for two decades.
Police are held accountable to electorate.
People are more likely to obey law.
Scenario 2:
Police enforce laws that they themselves do not obey.
People express contempt for police.
I myself don't often use my mobile whilst driving and have not crashed a car for two decades.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
No, because you're still preparing a joint which, when smoked, will turn you into a tedious hippy twat.
I'm looking forward to that transformation into hippy twat tonight.
this is that Trot thing where rape crisis centres are bad because they're revisionist and are delaying the inevitable worker's revolution, isn't it?
TopCat
Putin fanboy
this is that Trot thing where rape crisis centres are bad because they're revisionist and are delaying the inevitable worker's revolution, isn't it?
I know the arguement but don't hold with it.
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
It is difficult to catch them on the move so they go for the easy option. Speeding is another can of worms. The really dangerous drivers slow down just before the cameras and then speed up again. If you want to improve road safety they should set up a second hidden speed camera observing the area just before the trap.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
You say that like it hasn't happened yet.
Mr fucking Blue Sky
I am immersed in Hawkwind these days....
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Do you actually drive? Because if I had to choose between crossing paths on the road with a driver who is on the phone but looking at the road, and a driver who has a hand in the glove compartment and looking at it instead of the road, I know which one I'd choose.
In fact of course both instances are deeply wrong and should be penalised. But if you believe in penalising drivers for being on the phone while stationary at a lights, then you must believe in penalising those who look in their glove compartment or CD rack.
We either follow the law or we don't.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Why care so much about road safety? Accidents save on pensions and all sorts.
Similar threads
