Jump to content

Mobile phones and driving


ayjay

Recommended Posts

Not read all the thread but what's the law on using cb/ham radio hand held microphones?

 

 

What about people lighting up whilst driving ?

Thery're worse than anyone for being bad road users and a danger to the public. The druggies will stop at nothing to light up and f*ck the consiquenses. Then the plank's flick the cig out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For several years I had a hands free fixed cradle kit fitted in the car. my wife has a similar phone to mine so we could both use the phone kit if alone in the car. Last year bought a large van for business use. unfortunately the old type cradle was no longer available to fit to the van. Not cheap but invested in 2 new phones, both bluetooth and a £250 fixed kit for each vehicle. There is an easy reach button to answer the phone, this cuts out the radio and puts the conversation over the radio speakers. the microphone is near the rearview mirror so anyone in the vehicle can speak to the caller. not perfect but you can drive with both hands on the wheel while carrying out your conversation

Steam rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have a hands free too its called the mrs

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if your trying to elliminate distractions that stop you looking rthrough the windscreen with fyll concentration then ban taxis ,white vans and coppers up your backside trying to see if your on the phone!

 

 

Wot about on a hot and sultry day, as you drive through a high street somewhere at lunch time, all those women, half dressed. Bloody awfull, should be banned.

 

 

:bigemo_harabe_net-163::bigemo_harabe_net-163:

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to OAPS I don't think I am treading on that dangerous a ground here. Compulsory medical tests may well be necessary, BUT, I personally know of people that shouldn't be on the road, and anyone who knows people over 75 probably know a few as well.

 

Truth beknown, whilst none of us like to accept it our reactions and senses diminish with age, and whilst I accept the point is different for everyone, no doctor CAN COMPETENTLY assess the reactions and/or driving ability of a pensioner without actually sitting in a bloody vehicle with one and driving on a motorway at 70mph, and tackling city traffic. Since that is the 'full extent' to which your licence permits you to drive, in my opinion, the assesment needs to be made at that level. Again, the people I know suffer no more than mobility problems 'from a medical perspective' BUT mentally and physically are that slow that holding a conversation or making a cup of tea is hard work - SO - should they have a licence? NO. I am not having a go at older people for the sake of it - I admit - I am 27 - but I don't expect to be out on my VFR750 at 75 years old.

 

Also many age related illnesses, such as dementure, heart problems, diabetes, and declining vision CAN all be missed in a medical - people at early enough stages in all of those can appear perfectly normal AND it is shocking how older people can adapt both mentally and in personality to sometimes cover their health issues (no one likes to admit they are getting old).

 

Before anyone chirps in, I am of the full belief that a 17 year olds driving test should also involve compulsory motorway driving and urban navigation etc - and I'd be much happier with a 'controlled series of mini-tests' rather than the quick rushed test that I and most others got away with. Old people should be retested - not given a medical - it's the only 'safe' way to assess the issue.

 

With regards to insurance I am not sure it is exactly the case - insurance I think starts expensive, drops off to your sixties and then climbs back slightly because you frankly do become more of a risk. Norwich Union don't even quote over 70's because of the risk, and if you google for car insurance age factors the general consensus is over 65 (some insurers 70) then you are going to get loaded, almost as much as a teenager.

 

 

With respect to mobiles I am not saying this is a BAD LAW - I am just saying that I'd rather the police were doing random drugs test in problem areas and taking real idiots off the road, BEFORE, tackling mobiles. I'd rather have some electronic tested form of mandatory insurance BEFORE tackling mobiles. I'd rather see every rusted up banger than hasn't got an MOT or working headlights off the bloody road FIRST. It's all about priorities and whilst I can accept that it might be a distraction as I said, talking hands free with a cup of coffee is a similar level of distraction which is perfectly acceptable ... However, 100 million mobiles in the UK or something - I am sure the bean counters have established that it will generate cash for the coffers quickly than any of the above.

Edited by UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk

Ian W

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to OAPS I don't think I am treading on that dangerous a ground here. Compulsory medical tests may well be necessary, BUT, I personally know of people that shouldn't be on the road, and anyone who knows people over 75 probably know a few as well.

 

Truth beknown, whilst none of us like to accept it our reactions and senses diminish with age, and whilst I accept the point is different for everyone, no doctor CAN COMPETENTLY assess the reactions and/or driving ability of a pensioner without actually sitting in a bloody vehicle with one and driving on a motorway at 70mph, and tackling city traffic. Since that is the 'full extent' to which your licence permits you to drive, in my opinion, the assesment needs to be made at that level. Again, the people I know suffer no more than mobility problems 'from a medical perspective' BUT mentally and physically are that slow that holding a conversation or making a cup of tea is hard work - SO - should they have a licence? NO. I am not having a go at older people for the sake of it - I admit - I am 27 - but I don't expect to be out on my VFR750 at 75 years old.

 

Also many age related illnesses, such as dementure, heart problems, diabetes, and declining vision CAN all be missed in a medical - people at early enough stages in all of those can appear perfectly normal AND it is shocking how older people can adapt both mentally and in personality to sometimes cover their health issues (no one likes to admit they are getting old).

 

Before anyone chirps in, I am of the full belief that a 17 year olds driving test should also involve compulsory motorway driving and urban navigation etc - and I'd be much happier with a 'controlled series of mini-tests' rather than the quick rushed test that I and most others got away with. Old people should be retested - not given a medical - it's the only 'safe' way to assess the issue.

 

With regards to insurance I am not sure it is exactly the case - insurance I think starts expensive, drops off to your sixties and then climbs back slightly because you frankly do become more of a risk. Norwich Union don't even quote over 70's because of the risk, and if you google for car insurance age factors the general consensus is over 65 (some insurers 70) then you are going to get loaded, almost as much as a teenager.

With respect to mobiles I am not saying this is a BAD LAW - I am just saying that I'd rather the police were doing random drugs test in problem areas and taking real idiots off the road, BEFORE, tackling mobiles. I'd rather have some electronic tested form of mandatory insurance BEFORE tackling mobiles. I'd rather see every rusted up banger than hasn't got an MOT or working headlights off the bloody road FIRST. It's all about priorities and whilst I can accept that it might be a distraction as I said, talking hands free with a cup of coffee is a similar level of distraction which is perfectly acceptable ... However, 100 million mobiles in the UK or something - I am sure the bean counters have established that it will generate cash for the coffers quickly than any of the above.

 

 

I believe that as an oap when you reach a certain age you do have to retake your test and it is for a five yearly period.

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Brumagem Phil

uk fishing tackle......

 

....give it a rest old son!!!!!

 

You are without doubt being AGEIST! (as well as repetative and boring) Its a well documented FACT that its people YOUR age on MOTORBIKES which have the hihgest rate of accidents.

 

On that basis perhaps YOU should 'park it up'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to OAPS I don't think I am treading on that dangerous a ground here. Compulsory medical tests may well be necessary, BUT, I personally know of people that shouldn't be on the road, and anyone who knows people over 75 probably know a few as well.

 

Truth beknown, whilst none of us like to accept it our reactions and senses diminish with age, and whilst I accept the point is different for everyone, no doctor CAN COMPETENTLY assess the reactions and/or driving ability of a pensioner without actually sitting in a bloody vehicle with one and driving on a motorway at 70mph, and tackling city traffic. Since that is the 'full extent' to which your licence permits you to drive, in my opinion, the assesment needs to be made at that level. Again, the people I know suffer no more than mobility problems 'from a medical perspective' BUT mentally and physically are that slow that holding a conversation or making a cup of tea is hard work - SO - should they have a licence? NO. I am not having a go at older people for the sake of it - I admit - I am 27 - but I don't expect to be out on my VFR750 at 75 years old.

 

Also many age related illnesses, such as dementure, heart problems, diabetes, and declining vision CAN all be missed in a medical - people at early enough stages in all of those can appear perfectly normal AND it is shocking how older people can adapt both mentally and in personality to sometimes cover their health issues (no one likes to admit they are getting old).

 

Before anyone chirps in, I am of the full belief that a 17 year olds driving test should also involve compulsory motorway driving and urban navigation etc - and I'd be much happier with a 'controlled series of mini-tests' rather than the quick rushed test that I and most others got away with. Old people should be retested - not given a medical - it's the only 'safe' way to assess the issue.

 

With regards to insurance I am not sure it is exactly the case - insurance I think starts expensive, drops off to your sixties and then climbs back slightly because you frankly do become more of a risk. Norwich Union don't even quote over 70's because of the risk, and if you google for car insurance age factors the general consensus is over 65 (some insurers 70) then you are going to get loaded, almost as much as a teenager.

With respect to mobiles I am not saying this is a BAD LAW - I am just saying that I'd rather the police were doing random drugs test in problem areas and taking real idiots off the road, BEFORE, tackling mobiles. I'd rather have some electronic tested form of mandatory insurance BEFORE tackling mobiles. I'd rather see every rusted up banger than hasn't got an MOT or working headlights off the bloody road FIRST. It's all about priorities and whilst I can accept that it might be a distraction as I said, talking hands free with a cup of coffee is a similar level of distraction which is perfectly acceptable ... However, 100 million mobiles in the UK or something - I am sure the bean counters have established that it will generate cash for the coffers quickly than any of the above.

 

The biggest danger is without a doubt those who have just passed their test, four very young people died recently when their car struck a wall on a straight stretch of road due to loosing it at high speed.

 

The second biggest danger is young arrogant people who think they own the road and that all other drivers are to blame for their accidents, they are also the ones driving with mobiles plug to their ears.

 

Perhaps that's why they are complaining about the new law and us oldies are cheering. :rolleyes:

I fish, I catches a few, I lose a few, BUT I enjoys. Anglers Trust PM

 

eat.gif

 

http://www.petalsgardencenter.com

 

Petals Florist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brum Phil

 

I am not agesit - I was merely replying to a point above, and I think I replied to it in a logical and fairly well thought out manner. Ken stated he thought OAPS were given preference by insurance companies and I just didn't think that was truly accurate when you get above 70. Likewise the facts about peoples responses dropping etc are perfectly valid.

 

If no one on here is prepared to accept there are a great many old people who should be on the road, then fair enough - I fully accept (and I did make the same point) that 18 year olds should sit more difficult tests as well (and longer etc). My point was simply (again) that there are many risks on the road today, some are targetted and others quite blatantly are overlooked (again, such as recreational drug use).

 

Also, just because I ride a motocycle doesn't mean I ride like an idiot - a fairly huge misconception there - AND I've said this before living in a big biking country the accidents are nearly always to 40 odd year old blokes who hop on a new bike having not been on one 20 years (for anyone that lives in Lincolnshire I am sure you'll agree you read about relatively few 20 year olds being killed on bikes compared to the 40/50 year old bracket). Myself - I am certainly no scratcher (which a VFR750 isn't really for anyway - it's much more of a sports tourer).

Edited by UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk

Ian W

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UK FT - I don't think that you're being ageist. I'm just pleased that my father had the decision about carrying on driving taken out of his hands by dying suddenly last year at the age of 80. Due to pressure from my mother, he would have carried on indefinitely and there was no way that he should have still been on the road, given his state of confusion. I know of several other similar cases and it's nearly always the non-driving wives who expect their husbands to carry on driving long past the time that they should. The other side of the coin - elderly men whose cars have been the centre of their universe and who rapidly go downhill psychologically when they have to stop driving.

 

It's a difficult one to call, but all the time our society is organised on the basis of people driving (e.g. shops and services being inaccessible without a car), the problem is going to remain.

 

This isn't to say, btw, that I disagree with the undoubted fact that the majority of accidents are caused by reckless or careless driving on the part of the young and/or relatively inexperienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.