From: Alex Heney on 15 Aug 2006 17:00
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:39:39 GMT, "Steve" <no(a)way.com> wrote:
>> Well they could always start by issuing themselves with FPN's whenever
>> they use their push to talk half duplex personal radios while driving and
>> it isn't an emergency - but oops I forgot it is one law for them and
>> another law for the rest of us see:-
>> The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations
>> s 2  (4)
>> EXPLANATORY NOTE
>> Regulation 110(4) provides a definition of devices that are considered
>> similar to hand-held mobile telephones for the purpose of these
>> regulations. This definition excludes two-way radios.
>Police dont use 2 way radios and so are covered by the regulations. 2-way
>radios are so defined by the name, they send and recieve data/voice between
>2 radios, ie the ones you buy for your kids while out camping.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Richard Brookman on 15 Aug 2006 17:08
|| Two way radio conversation between police and control, are
|| pre-learnt short phrases. They are talking about the task in hand,
|| so require much less concentration.
And they end with "Out", not:
Yeah, see ya
<giggle> OK then
By the way, did you get the milk?
Christ, where'd he come from?
I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.
From: Phil Clarke on 15 Aug 2006 17:34
>> That is a good point - if we all had a little more gumption, we could
>> take videos of the idiots who insist on using a mobile while driving.
> Yeah, right.
> Using a video camera while driving probably isn't an offence, eh?
friend of mine has front & rear cameras hooked up to a solid state
recorder with dashboard on/off switches. It's for track days, but AFAIK
there's nothing wrong with turning them on while driving on the road (no
displays in the car, just the recorder).
From: Peter on 15 Aug 2006 17:43
> He was in the same lane to start off with
> Then he tied to over take me on the inside lane
so move over, you pompous cretin.
From: JNugent on 15 Aug 2006 18:06
> JNugent wrote:
>>>>What a weird sense of priorities you have. You choose to disbelieve
>>>>the word of the victim and to believe the allegations of an
>>>>anonymous nutter who is committing criminal damage (the legal
>>>>equivalent of theft).
>>>Just who is the nutter?
>>The person damaging other peoples' property. He does it intentionally.
> You think the drivers making calls are doing it unintentionally?
>>>At least the tyre slasher is doing it when the car is stationary.
>>Don't be daft.
> I'm not - the tyre slasher is causing less danger.
You have now got to be almost the front runner for the "Biggest Missing Of
The Point" 2006.