From: ChelseaTractorMan on
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:07:48 -0000, "Brimstone"
<brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>So that they can be seen to be "doing something"

to aid road safety.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: Harry Bloomfield on
Conor submitted this idea :
> However....
>
> See me after I'd been stood up for 10-20 minutes or carrying something and
> you'd realise just how bad I am but people like you never do.

Which has what relevance to my comments?

I have no problem at all with anyone making full use of a blue badge,
or the provision of cars for those who have a need for such. I do take
exception to misuse and abuse of either or both provisions.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk


From: Harry Bloomfield on
Conor has brought this to us :
> On 14/03/2010 13:25, oldMaxim wrote:
>
>> ...why's this a stupid law??
>
> Because the governments own official statistics prove it is a nonsense. The
> figures for KSI have decreased over the last decade, meanwhile the number of
> those using a mobile phone have increased exponentially even in the years the
> KSI figures have reached record lows. All of this is occurring as the total
> billion km travelled per year and number of registered cars keeps on
> climbing. So as a percentage, the risk factor drops off a cliff to the point
> that it is statistically insignificant.
>
> Yes it isn't clever and neither are a lot of other things people do whilst
> driving but the figures prove that it isn't the death dealer the government
> would like you to believe. It is merely something else the govt can use as a
> revenue generator.

Today, on a derestricted bit of DC, I along with several others came up
behind one of those sandwich delivery trucks in L2 simply because his
speed suddenly fell to 40 from the 50 to 60 he had been doing. Most of
us assumed wrongly that he was slowing down for a right turn ahead and
his indicators were faulty and so undertook him. I found out the reason
as I passed him - he was on the phone and completely oblivious of the
traffic around him. Now I suppose he was lucky that no one stepped out
in the road, who might have made a similar assumption.

Many people cannot drive effectively whilst using a phone - he
definitely was one such example.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk


From: Dave S. on
"ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:180sp5thkj88hvuf7h31mlpl537hfj77b0(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:36:18 -0000, "Mr. Benn"
> <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>When are people going to get the message?
>
> not yet, saw woman on motorway this morning struggling with a hand
> held and looking at it rather than the road.

Makes a change from looking in the rear view mirror whilst applying makeup.

> I will use the hands free to ring my partners mobile to say "be there
> in 5 minutes" beyond that, no way.

Why not just wait the five minutes? I bet you ring from a supermarket to ask
what size cabbage to buy :-)

>conversations on the phone are distracting.

I totally agree that mobiles should not be used "hand held", but why are
conversations on a hands-free phone more distracting than talking to a
passenger in the car?

Cheers
Dave S.

From: ChelseaTractorMan on
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:26:28 -0000, "Dave S." <somewhere(a)nowhere.com>
wrote:

>I totally agree that mobiles should not be used "hand held", but why are
>conversations on a hands-free phone more distracting than talking to a
>passenger in the car?

Anybody can hold a phone in their hand, its not the issue.

A passenger can distract the driver. How does that make adding a
further and worse distraction a good idea? The caller has no idea the
person is driving and is likely to convey complex or worrying
information. Passengers (with any sense) do not ask difficult
questions as you go to overtake. The existence of passengers with no
sense does make phoning a good idea.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.