From: Titus McHunt on 16 Aug 2006 14:26
"Ivor Jones" <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote in message
>> I have yet to meet anyone who has stopped using their
>> mobile whilst driving. I imagine the majority here do
>> too, if they are honest.
> I use mine, but only when it's in a handsfree car kit (Nokia
I wear a Bluetooth earpiece in each ear and I have a boom mic extending
across the wheel, plus a blue light on the roof.
I carry a baseball bat in the boot, have a shaven head and tatoos on my
And I help my landlady carry out her garbage.
From: Ivor Jones on 16 Aug 2006 14:26
"David Taylor" <davidt-news(a)yadt.co.uk> wrote in message
> On 2006-08-15, R. Mark Clayton
> <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.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:-
> Er, no. As you quoted below it is the same law for them
> and us.
> It is entirely legal for a police officer to use a
> two-way radio whilst driving, just as it is entirely
> legal for _you_ to use a two-way radio whilst driving.
Provided that (a) it is one for which you hold a licence or (b) a 446MHz
BTW I use a handsfree kit for my amateur radio as well as my phone.
From: Ivor Jones on 16 Aug 2006 14:29
"Steve" <no(a)way.com> wrote in message
> 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.
From: PC Paul on 16 Aug 2006 15:22
> PM wrote:
>> But was she using one? If not, why would she say
>> "I think it must be (someone following me home) as that's the only
>> way they would find out where you live."
>> Following her home from where? From where she used (someone else's)
>> mobile while driving? Otherwise why not assume it's a random attack
>> on a parked car?
> The part: "(following me home)" looks like an context insertion by the
> writer of the article, rather than necessarily being what the victim
> said, otherwise it could simply have been rendered as:
> "I think it must be someone who followed me home as that's the only
> way they would find out where I live" (or words to exactly the same
> effect) without the need for brackets.
Damn clever inserting it into the video I saw of her being interviewed.
These journo's, eh?
From: Simon Finnigan on 16 Aug 2006 15:33
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:06:45 GMT, "burt"
> <burtthebike(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I have yet to meet anyone who has stopped using their mobile whilst
> driving. I imagine the majority here do too, if they are honest.
You obviously know idiots. I do not, have not and will not use my mobile
when driving. Hands free kits are IMHO an appalling idea - they do not
remove the distraction of trying to hear a poor quality call with drop out
(which is according to a few studies the main reason mobile phones distract
drivers, not the actual conversation). A hands free kit gives a driver the
impression that they are being sensible and safe and paying full attention
to the road, which is still not the case.
If a call is important, it`s important enough either for me to wait for the
next services (for gods sake, don`t stop on the hard shoulder to take a
phone call - it`s not exactly the safest place in the world is it?) or for a
caller to leave me a voicemail, which I`ll get at the next services.