Ever been had Mr plod?
Discussion
Very true.
I was taught never to play in the road. I can still remember the rollicking I was given in about 1955 when I crossed the A303 in Ilminster (long before the bypass was built!) having been told not to. Even though I'd been taught the 'look right, look left, look right again' crossing drill!
Yet the huggy-fluffy attitude these days seems to be that any little $od can run across a road and it's invariably the motorist's fault if it gets hurt. The chav parents will try to extract thousands of pounds of compensation through one of those "Had an accident recently?" lawyers - even though it was their own fault for totally failing to control their spawn.
But people yakking on non-handsfree spiv-phones whilst driving deserve to be prosecuted. I was once driving through Charterville Allotments to Witney. Approaching the junction with the old Burford Road, I looked in my mirror and noticed the driver behind was both smoking AND talking into a mobile phone. So I slowed down good and early and watched as the idiot juggled phone, fag, indicators, gears and steering wheel. It happened every time we got to a junction - very dangerous.
Unfortunately no BiB to be seen......
>> Edited by nickwilcock on Sunday 4th September 08:50
I was taught never to play in the road. I can still remember the rollicking I was given in about 1955 when I crossed the A303 in Ilminster (long before the bypass was built!) having been told not to. Even though I'd been taught the 'look right, look left, look right again' crossing drill!
Yet the huggy-fluffy attitude these days seems to be that any little $od can run across a road and it's invariably the motorist's fault if it gets hurt. The chav parents will try to extract thousands of pounds of compensation through one of those "Had an accident recently?" lawyers - even though it was their own fault for totally failing to control their spawn.
But people yakking on non-handsfree spiv-phones whilst driving deserve to be prosecuted. I was once driving through Charterville Allotments to Witney. Approaching the junction with the old Burford Road, I looked in my mirror and noticed the driver behind was both smoking AND talking into a mobile phone. So I slowed down good and early and watched as the idiot juggled phone, fag, indicators, gears and steering wheel. It happened every time we got to a junction - very dangerous.
Unfortunately no BiB to be seen......
>> Edited by nickwilcock on Sunday 4th September 08:50
pals4 said:
Whilst out driving last night, we were negotiating a roundabout, and i was on my phone at the time.
Sods law!!! a cop car joined the roundabout from the next exit, My wife Diane said...he is flashing his lights, so i think we should pull over don't you?
So we did, We just sat in the car and waited for him to come to us.
I knew why he had stopped us...Yes it was the using of the Phone whilst driving.
He appeared at my window, and you should have seen his face, when he realised that we were driving my wifes left hand drive Smart car,and i was the passenger,
He exclaimed a big Aghhhhhhhhhh, when he saw the error of his ways, and laughed his head off, and so did we.
But the Barsteward had to have the last word...Get that brake light fixed asap
Don't ya just love it when you get one up on em, coz this Braintree copper looked about 14 years old, smarmy little Sit!!!!! made our day
Dave
I am a Police Officer - does that make me a barsteward? Get a life and loose attitude.
If the cap fits mate ??
guizer said:The very minor injury almost certainly means that the driver saw the kid in the road (run out without looking probably) and braked before impact, so the kid was hit at speed well below 30mph. What's to say that the phone had any bearing whatsoever?
I attended a RTC this very afternoon involving a 4 year old who was run down by a driver in a 30 limit who was on his mobile and not hands free - no indication of excess speed or similar, I hasten to add...The kid seems OK with a minor head injury and no serious consequenses anticipated
Not to say that using a mobile is always safe, but it isn't always dangerous either. Soon we won't be able to pick our nose at the wheel without a risk assessment. Agree with nonegreen regarding the one-sided approach to this sort of thing, if a kid had run out into a driver's thinking distance, the motorist could be reading war and peace for all the good it would do. As it happens, this time someone got lucky.
turbobloke said:
Not to say that using a mobile is always safe, but it isn't always dangerous either. Soon we won't be able to pick our nose at the wheel without a risk assessment.
Whilst I agree that using a phone is not ALWAYS dangerous (I've used mine in traffic jams, for example), I am convinced that it is OFTEN a major contribution to driver inattention.
To me, one is much more continually focussed on a phone conversation (which with calls on mobiles in cars are often about something "important"
, than one is with a conversation with a passenger, for example, when one naturally stops/slows talking as the need for concentration goes up. Couple this inattention with driving one-handed, and it must constitute a reduction in the drivers capabilities whilst taking place IMHO. Prof Beard
Prof Beard said:Agreed talking on a mobile with one hand on the wheel can in many circumstances be dangerous but in others it's not. For example you would be fined for sitting in a traffic jam talking on your mobile yet it would be perfectly safe. Just like the law on vehicle speed, most road traffic law enforcement these days has parted company with genuine safety concerns, and focuses on arbitrary things.
...reduction in the drivers capabilities...Prof Beard
My other point was that there are many very distracting things happen while we're driving, like driving past scantily clad females - or whatever takes your fancy - or a heated political debate on the radio, or being lost and not knowing where the hell you're going, or having a very severe itch in some remote location, or a wasp in the car or...how can we ban all these or attempt to remove them on threat of a fine?
There's evidence that mobile phones cause inattention but no evidence that it's more or less than any of these and other causes. That's why it's arbitrary, unhelpful and why I expect the nose picking statute any time now
Nanny statism, ugh. Life's risky, if that's unacceptable, tough. The nanny state can go quiver in its cocoon of cotton wool but ffs let the rest of us get on with our lives in some form of realistic sanity
turbobloke said:
...reduction in the drivers capabilities...Prof Beard
Agreed talking on a mobile with one hand on the wheel can in many circumstances be dangerous but in others it's not. For example you would be fined for sitting in a traffic jam talking on your mobile yet it would be perfectly safe. Just like the law on vehicle speed, most road traffic law enforcement these days has parted company with genuine safety concerns, and focuses on arbitrary things.
My other point was that there are many very distracting things happen while we're driving, like driving past scantily clad females - or whatever takes your fancy - or a heated political debate on the radio, or being lost and not knowing where the hell you're going, or having a very severe itch in some remote location, or a wasp in the car or...how can we ban all these or attempt to remove them on threat of a fine?
There's evidence that mobile phones cause inattention but no evidence that it's more or less than any of these and other causes. That's why it's arbitrary, unhelpful and why I expect the nose picking statute any time now
Nanny statism, ugh. Life's risky, if that's unacceptable, tough. The nanny state can go quiver in its cocoon of cotton wool but ffs let the rest of us get on with our lives in some form of realistic sanity
In general I'm with you, but I really do think that someone holding a conversation on a mobile whilst driving in moving traffic is more distracted than they would be by most other things you mention - PLUS they have CHOSEN to be distacted - sadly I've never been given the option of having scantily clad females arranged at the roadside to my request
Prof Beard
Prof Beard said:Yes we agree in the most general sense but my point is about specifics rather than arbitrariness. If it IS dangerous then punish, if not then leave alone. Someone should have to make, and then defend, such a judgement. Blanket legislation is a bad bad thing.
I really do think that someone holding a conversation on a mobile whilst driving in moving traffic is more distracted than they would be by most other things you mention - PLUS they have CHOSEN to be distacted
Take the drink-drive laws, if your blood alcohol level is above an arbitrary number (depending on which country you're in it's arbitrary) then you're a drunk driver and a menace to society and a child killer in waiting and bunny squasher and deserve hanging etc. Only maybe not, you could be someone with the body mass and alcohol tolerance to drive safely, OR you could be under the arbitrary limit but an absolute disaster on wheels because you're skinny and have low tolerance - but the requirement to prove danger has been remoevd. That's unacceptable. German judge threw out a drink-drive case as the bloke evaded trained and skilled police drivers for more than an hour without crashing or anything bad happening. The judge said that proved the guy wasn't a danger - we need more of that here. Well, we need anything we can get remotely like it here!
Prof Beard said:Really? I thought that happened for everyone
sadly I've never been given the option of having scantily clad females arranged at the roadside to my request
turbobloke said:
I really do think that someone holding a conversation on a mobile whilst driving in moving traffic is more distracted than they would be by most other things you mention - PLUS they have CHOSEN to be distacted
Yes we agree in the most general sense but my point is about specifics rather than arbitrariness. If it IS dangerous then punish, if not then leave alone. Someone should have to make, and then defend, such a judgement. Blanket legislation is a bad bad thing.
Take the drink-drive laws, if your blood alcohol level is above an arbitrary number (depending on which country you're in it's arbitrary) then you're a drunk driver and a menace to society and a child killer in waiting and bunny squasher and deserve hanging etc. Only maybe not, you could be someone with the body mass and alcohol tolerance to drive safely, OR you could be under the arbitrary limit but an absolute disaster on wheels because you're skinny and have low tolerance - but the requirement to prove danger has been remoevd. That's unacceptable. German judge threw out a drink-drive case as the bloke evaded trained and skilled police drivers for more than an hour without crashing or anything bad happening. The judge said that proved the guy wasn't a danger - we need more of that here. Well, we need anything we can get remotely like it here!
Trouble with your example is that I fear, in the UK, every p
head would try and emulate the bloke in question - unsuccessfully. Sadly, this is the usual tension between allowing people to do whatever they want provided they don't hurt anyone else (my own view of what is best, by the way) whilst at the same time protecting society's members from t
ts. turbobloke said:
sadly I've never been given the option of having scantily clad females arranged at the roadside to my request
Really? I thought that happened for everyone
I sort of get that at work, though, during hot weather
Prof Beard
Prof Beard said:Someone making a judgement is more than sufficient to protect, even with the arbitrary law you still need someone to see something (apart from speeding). In fact it's much better than an arbitrary 'rule' as it will catch those not covered by the 'rule' who ARE seen to be dangerous
this is the usual tension between allowing people to do whatever they want provided they don't hurt anyone else (my own view of what is best, by the way) whilst at the same time protecting society's members from t
turbobloke said:
Prof Beard said:
this is the usual tension between allowing people to do whatever they want provided they don't hurt anyone else (my own view of what is best, by the way) whilst at the same time protecting society's members from t
Someone making a judgement is more than sufficient to protect, even with the arbitrary law you still need someone to see something (apart from speeding). In fact it's much better than an arbitrary 'rule' as it will catch those not covered by the 'rule' who ARE seen to be dangerous
The problem is we are becoming an "input" obsessed society. We used to have an education system that relied on exams, (outputs) now we have people do lots of soft wooly "hard work" (inputs) and a little exam at the end which does not matter. We do the same with every aspect of the civil service by determining the performance indicators in advance and designing a system to measure the performance of every aspect of the activity as it happens. That aproach has become trendy and is adopted as the accepted way of aproaching problems. Partly because of the availablity of IT and partly because of the success it has yielded in manufacturing improvements. Nevertheless it means that "Judgement" is now the very last thing in the chain. Systemic instant fines and automatic penalties with difficulties to object built in, provide statistical BS to confound the majority of the halfwits that make up the great unwashed. The formula for accident reduction is to blindly and often erroniously plot severity v likelihood and as a consequence install speed humps on every road in our towns. The aproach reminds me of Spinal Tap and their amplifiers that "go up to 11". Its very frustrating when public sector workers are so knowlege free that they blindly follow the rules. It does not matter if its the law or the project parameters the principles are the same. Stop people from thinking for themselves. Soon thinking itself will be criminalised. Personally I would take up arms tommorow because I think it is intollerable already but not everyone agrees with me YET.
>> Edited by nonegreen on Sunday 4th September 14:03
Guys - lighten up a bit. Lets face it:
Firstly, if you drive while using a phone, you know you are a distracted d*ckhead. You can pretend all you want, but you know it's wrong deep down, 'cos you ain't a good a driver as you think you are. Yes, it does cause accidents, you ignoring that doesn't change things.
Secondly, most Rozzers are not Bar Stewards, and a few hours spent in some inner cities with 'em might shut some of you up that think they only want to pick on you unfairly. The BiB come into daily contact with the scum of this earth, thick drunken drugged up wasters that think Burberry is fashionable. Let's face it, you might be stopped for speeding et al, but they ain't bad.
Thirdly, arbitrary rules are not always bad. Rules only relating to specifics are not always good.
Etc., etc., etc. BUT, I can't help thinkig that the original thread was a mite funny. Obviously the poster is a numpty for thinking it's good to get at the BiB for doing his job, but nevertheless, you've got to laugh a bit (as did the original copper that stopped him). There is a funny side.
By the way, driving to work once, I saw the lady driver in front distracted...no, she wasn't phoning, or combing her hair, or putting on make up, she was curling her hair with rolling tongs as she drove along (I jest not).
I still think the LH drive is funny though.
Firstly, if you drive while using a phone, you know you are a distracted d*ckhead. You can pretend all you want, but you know it's wrong deep down, 'cos you ain't a good a driver as you think you are. Yes, it does cause accidents, you ignoring that doesn't change things.
Secondly, most Rozzers are not Bar Stewards, and a few hours spent in some inner cities with 'em might shut some of you up that think they only want to pick on you unfairly. The BiB come into daily contact with the scum of this earth, thick drunken drugged up wasters that think Burberry is fashionable. Let's face it, you might be stopped for speeding et al, but they ain't bad.
Thirdly, arbitrary rules are not always bad. Rules only relating to specifics are not always good.
Etc., etc., etc. BUT, I can't help thinkig that the original thread was a mite funny. Obviously the poster is a numpty for thinking it's good to get at the BiB for doing his job, but nevertheless, you've got to laugh a bit (as did the original copper that stopped him). There is a funny side.
By the way, driving to work once, I saw the lady driver in front distracted...no, she wasn't phoning, or combing her hair, or putting on make up, she was curling her hair with rolling tongs as she drove along (I jest not).
I still think the LH drive is funny though.
Big Fat F'er said:Just checked and there's nothing protruding from my forehead remotely resembling a penis
Firstly, if you drive while using a phone, you know you are a distracted d*ckhead.
Big Fat F'er said:And you know each of us and how good we are? What our concentration levels are and how they change? Nope.
You can pretend all you want, but you know it's wrong deep down, 'cos you ain't a good a driver as you think you are.
Big Fat F'er said:Nobody said it didn't cause accidents. So does scratching your ass or changing the tape or arguing with the wife or whatever. these things also don't cause accidents.
Yes, it does cause accidents, you ignoring that doesn't change things.
Big Fat F'er said:Are you typing from the inner city then? And we don't know any police officers and understand aspects of their job? or maybe have had similar or worse jobs? OK give in, nobody else knows about life in the cities though so you're OK on that one
Secondly, most Rozzers are not Bar Stewards, and a few hours spent in some inner cities with 'em might shut some of you up that think they only want to pick on you unfairly.
Big fat F'er said:Wrong, and wrong again.
Thirdly, arbitrary rules are not always bad. Rules only relating to specifics are not always good.
Big Fat F'er said:Well you had to get something right eventually
I can't help thinkig that the original thread was a mite funny.
Big Fat F'er said:
Guys - lighten up a bit. Lets face it:
Firstly, if you drive while using a phone, you know you are a distracted d*ckhead. You can pretend all you want, but you know it's wrong deep down, 'cos you ain't a good a driver as you think you are. Yes, it does cause accidents, you ignoring that doesn't change things.
Secondly, most Rozzers are not Bar Stewards, and a few hours spent in some inner cities with 'em might shut some of you up that think they only want to pick on you unfairly. The BiB come into daily contact with the scum of this earth, thick drunken drugged up wasters that think Burberry is fashionable. Let's face it, you might be stopped for speeding et al, but they ain't bad.
Thirdly, arbitrary rules are not always bad. Rules only relating to specifics are not always good.
Etc., etc., etc. BUT, I can't help thinkig that the original thread was a mite funny. Obviously the poster is a numpty for thinking it's good to get at the BiB for doing his job, but nevertheless, you've got to laugh a bit (as did the original copper that stopped him). There is a funny side.
By the way, driving to work once, I saw the lady driver in front distracted...no, she wasn't phoning, or combing her hair, or putting on make up, she was curling her hair with rolling tongs as she drove along (I jest not).
I still think the LH drive is funny though.
This is the biggest croc of shite I have ever read. If we applied the same standards to driving as we do to everything else then it would be perfectly permissable to drive along using a phone. This is far less distracting than having kids in the car. Or shall we ban kids now? The cop who pulled the guy for using his phone should be given a bollocking and put back on foot. The law on phones was brought in by Blair. All laws brought in by Blair are shite and should be repealed at the next election. Go for green get the police off the roads solving crime not racing round making a racket and annoying motorists.
nonegreen said:
This is the biggest croc of shite I have ever read. If we applied the same standards to driving as we do to everything else then it would be perfectly permissable to drive along using a phone. This is far less distracting than having kids in the car. Or shall we ban kids now? The cop who pulled the guy for using his phone should be given a bollocking and put back on foot. The law on phones was brought in by Blair. All laws brought in by Blair are shite and should be repealed at the next election. Go for green get the police off the roads solving crime not racing round making a racket and annoying motorists.
Difference between you and Turbobloke is that he can construct an argument. He doesn't agree with me, fine. I respect his right to his point of view, and he's put a counter argument. By the way, I do live in the inner city, and I see what the BiB have to put up with on a daily basis. It is genuinely frightening. I'm talking about no go areas, drug trafficking, violence, mugging. Like the lass only this week that was robbed of her mobile at gunpoint.
All I'm saying is that I still believe that most of us deep down know it's distracting to use a phone while driving. But even if I didn't think that, it's a law. Maybe good, maybe bad. But your argument that the copper should be given a bollocking....that's a cracker. In the old days if you broke a law and got caught, you took it on the chin. You didn't whinge about it like a little girl. "All laws brought in by Blair are shite". You get better!
I still think that the original point was funny, and I would have laughed even though I support the Old Bill. But I wouldn't have laughed as much as reading "Go for green get the police off the roads solving crime not racing round making a racket and annoying motorists".
nonegreen said:
Guys - lighten up a bit. Lets face it:
Firstly, if you drive while using a phone, you know you are a distracted d*ckhead. You can pretend all you want, but you know it's wrong deep down, 'cos you ain't a good a driver as you think you are. Yes, it does cause accidents, you ignoring that doesn't change things.
Secondly, most Rozzers are not Bar Stewards, and a few hours spent in some inner cities with 'em might shut some of you up that think they only want to pick on you unfairly. The BiB come into daily contact with the scum of this earth, thick drunken drugged up wasters that think Burberry is fashionable. Let's face it, you might be stopped for speeding et al, but they ain't bad.
Thirdly, arbitrary rules are not always bad. Rules only relating to specifics are not always good.
Etc., etc., etc. BUT, I can't help thinkig that the original thread was a mite funny. Obviously the poster is a numpty for thinking it's good to get at the BiB for doing his job, but nevertheless, you've got to laugh a bit (as did the original copper that stopped him). There is a funny side.
By the way, driving to work once, I saw the lady driver in front distracted...no, she wasn't phoning, or combing her hair, or putting on make up, she was curling her hair with rolling tongs as she drove along (I jest not).
I still think the LH drive is funny though.
This is the biggest croc of shite I have ever read. If we applied the same standards to driving as we do to everything else then it would be perfectly permissable to drive along using a phone. This is far less distracting than having kids in the car. Or shall we ban kids now? The cop who pulled the guy for using his phone should be given a bollocking and put back on foot. The law on phones was brought in by Blair. All laws brought in by Blair are shite and should be repealed at the next election. Go for green get the police off the roads solving crime not racing round making a racket and annoying motorists.
I bet you are good down the pub at getting a few people going ....... or perhaps you believe what you've typed - still, it made me smile !
All this talk of being had reminds me of a personal 'had'
Call comes in, chap with baseball bat smashing pub and people to a pulp.
I'm driving, so code 1 as fast as I can, other pc navigating for me. We get to the pub, out come the asps fully extended. I go through the door very 'purposefully' to find about 6 old boys playing dominoes.
They all look up rather startled, I explain why I was behaving so, and obviously it was a 'joke'.
Nothing had happened there at all.
The barman graciously asked if I fancied a pint as I made such an entrance, I declined but had a chat for a bit.
However, joking aside, if I had killed myself driving on the way, it wouldn't have been so.
I hasten to add, the call didn't come from the pub, or they would all have had some.
>> Edited by silverback mike on Sunday 4th September 17:43
Call comes in, chap with baseball bat smashing pub and people to a pulp.
I'm driving, so code 1 as fast as I can, other pc navigating for me. We get to the pub, out come the asps fully extended. I go through the door very 'purposefully' to find about 6 old boys playing dominoes.
They all look up rather startled, I explain why I was behaving so, and obviously it was a 'joke'.
Nothing had happened there at all.
The barman graciously asked if I fancied a pint as I made such an entrance, I declined but had a chat for a bit.
However, joking aside, if I had killed myself driving on the way, it wouldn't have been so.
I hasten to add, the call didn't come from the pub, or they would all have had some.
>> Edited by silverback mike on Sunday 4th September 17:43
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff