Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to OOF

Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Mobile Comms v Driving  (Read 3764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cem_devecioglu

  • Guest
Re: Mobile Comms v Driving
« Reply #30 on: 20 December 2007, 22:14:34 »

reason is gov political -religious ideas..Actually not the safety..But they dont say the truth as you  guess..

However smoking here is very common..If the police really try to apply the rule they will go in trouble with many drivers..

Logged

Revokev

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Stafford
  • Posts: 218
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile Comms v Driving
« Reply #31 on: 20 December 2007, 22:14:49 »

Quote
Quote
here they ban smoking for drivers >:(

That's going too far. Jesus Christ! I can feel a rant coming on. When are people going to realise that you just cant take all the risk out of day-to-day living? Driving is one of lifes pleasures and, God knows, we certainly pay enough for the priviledge. I, for one, will flout the no smoking law if it's ever introduced over here.
Me too :y
Logged
BREAKING 2000 W CDX COLOUR Z147 , SEE PARTS FOR SALE SECTION

Andy B

  • Get A Life!!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Bury Lancs
  • Posts: 39784
    • ML350 TDM SmartRoadster
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile Comms v Driving
« Reply #32 on: 20 December 2007, 22:30:20 »

Quote
Quote
Quote
here they ban smoking for drivers >:(

That's going too far. Jesus Christ! I can feel a rant coming on. When are people going to realise that you just cant take all the risk out of day-to-day living? Driving is one of lifes pleasures and, God knows, we certainly pay enough for the priviledge. I, for one, will flout the no smoking law if it's ever introduced over here.
Me too :y

 ..... and me! >:( & I gave up nearly 6 years ago! :y
Logged

sassanach

  • Omega Knight
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • trowbridge
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile Comms v Driving
« Reply #33 on: 20 December 2007, 22:37:20 »

Dangerous Nonsense


The press is full of reports such as this, declaring that mobile phone use will in future attract a prison sentence. This is largely nonsense, and the CPS (who have issued the press releases that started this story) know that it is.
The law has not changed. All that has changed is the CPS' guidance to its own staff as to the correct offence to charge when someone causes mayhem on the roads while distracted by using a telephone. In the worst cases (and they will be few) the CPS will charge Dangerous Driving (as they are free to do already) or its most serious version, Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, which for some years has carried up to (I think) 14 years inside. But it isn't up to the CPS to decide what's dangerous, as opposed to careless, it's up to a jury. And juries are notoriously ready to convict of the lower charge, perhaps because any jury will include people who have used a phone while driving. This applies even more so to Manslaughter - in fact it was the acquittal rate that led to the introduction of the offfence of causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
This is a spin exercise, part of the CPS strategy to raise its profile.
Mobile phone use is a problem but so is enforcement - if someone is driving in the dark on a motorway, who or what is going to detect his use of the phone? Technology may provide an answer one day, but it won't be soon and it won't be cheap.

posted by Bystander | 11:27 AM Comments (5) | Trackback (0)  

Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Think Yourself Well Served

Charon QC blogs about a controversial payment of a few thousand pounds.
Why don't we Brits appreciate how lucky we are?
In almost any country an allegation of impropriety involving less than ten, or a hundred, grand of our Earth pounds would be greeted with a shrug.
I do not seek to excuse anyone, but we Brits almost certainly have the world's least corrupt politicians, judiciary, and public servants. And being Brits, we assume the opposite.

posted by Bystander | 8:39 PM Comments (16) | Trackback (0)  

Talking of Fishing

It's difficult to disapprove of the fishing licence system, since the cash raised goes directly into maintaining fishing waters, and the licence costs less than 50p per week. When we see cases of unlicensed fishing we impose fines and costs that rub in the message that it's cheaper to get a licence.
I was surprised to learn recently that we now have the power to ban someone from holding or applying for a rod licence for up to five years. I simply had to ask the lawyers the penalty for Fishing While Disqualified, but none of them knew, and we had too much work on to take time to look it up.
I know that defiance of a court order is a terribly serious business, and that we should visit the wrath of the law on perpetrators, but I don't think that I could keep a straight face while dealing with one of these. Do we give him an endorsement? Make him take a new test? Is there a test?
While the Police and CPS continue to usurp the judicial functions of the courts in ever more serious cases, with conditional cautions and penalty notices, why is my list cluttered up with this kind of stuff that cries out to be dealt with by fixed penalty?

posted by Bystander | 5:09 PM Comments (6) | Trackback (0)  

Spams and Scams

As I wearily click through my Inbox deleting the daily influx of spam that has slipped past my electronic sentinels I sometimes wonder if anyone out there can really be gullible enough to fall for the tired old Nigerian 419 scams, the magic penis pills and all the other come-ons. I blogged about a phisher who nearly got away with it here. Then last week we saw before us a man accused of operating the well-known 'you-have-won-the-lottery' scam, which is a variation on the advanced fee fraud theme. Someone had fallen for it and had been relieved of over £25,000 in upfront fees to get their huge winnings released. That's the last I shall see of it as the case is off to the Crown Court to be dealt with, but it does explain the persistence of the scammers - you can send a lot of emails for twenty five grand.

posted by Bystander | 4:56 PM Comments (10) | Trackback (0)  

Sunday, December 16, 2007
Secondary ID

Is one way to put it.

This is what is available now.

In five years' time?

posted by Bystander | 3:29 PM Comments (21) | Trackback (0)  

Friday, December 14, 2007
Solid Principles

Stan Still, in a comment on another thread, refers to the Victorian Nine Principles of Policing.
They bear repetition, and seem as valid today as they were in 1829.


1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasi
Logged

sassanach

  • Omega Knight
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • trowbridge
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile Comms v Driving
« Reply #34 on: 20 December 2007, 22:39:08 »

whoops quoted too much!!!

Logged

ghondie

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • sheerness,kent,uk
  • Posts: 118
  • Looking for work, any offers?
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile Comms v Driving
« Reply #35 on: 21 December 2007, 19:03:17 »

wait for it next will be banning of all music being played in teh car incase people sing along and loose concentration.  ::)
Logged
Man with a mission. not sure what it is but i've got one
Sheerness Lifeboat Crew and ILB Mechanic

Elite Pete

  • Omega Queen
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Chester
  • Posts: 19580
  • My spider senses are tingling
    • Audi SQ5 GSX1400
    • View Profile
Re: Mobile Comms v Driving
« Reply #36 on: 21 December 2007, 19:06:45 »

Quote
Quote
this is headline bullshit .dangerous driving is well nigh impossible to prove unless you have a confession.

Valid point!

However, I was privy to the local councils CCTV control room yesterday..  45 clear definition screens / cameras covering many streets in our locality...  there is some of the evidence if they wished to use it :o

DC
I have been in the one in Cardiff and it was amazing what could be seen :)
Logged
Retired

Taxi_Driver

  • Guest
Re: Mobile Comms v Driving
« Reply #37 on: 21 December 2007, 20:53:01 »

Quote
In my opinion driving using handsfree is no different from having a conversation with another person in the car which I think is good on a motorway as it relieves the hypnotising effect and keeps you alert.
What they going to do next ban conversation altogether in a car. >:(
But I suppose you have to cater for idiots. ;D

Absolutely agree there  :y

Tho some 'experts' say passengers in cars are aware of whats going on around you......and stay quiet if for example you are trying to pull outa a difficult junction........tell that 'expert' if ive got someone in the back of my cab and they wanna chat.....they carry on regardless.......

In fact its easier to tell someone your chatting to on the phone.......either hang on a min.......or i'll call you back in two mins......which i do quite a bit.
« Last Edit: 21 December 2007, 20:53:59 by Taxi_Driver »
Logged

STMO123

  • Guest
Re: Mobile Comms v Driving
« Reply #38 on: 21 December 2007, 20:55:43 »

All of this fails to take into account what kind of driver you are in the first place. Some divs would cause havoc on an empty motorway in the middle of the night without any distractions.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.016 seconds with 17 queries.