Cameras + YouTube + Google - using the power

[col]

Van one is CLEAR

Van 2- fair nuff

Ok enlarge the pic, I couldnt see a phone in one, just a hand on his head. I dont believe you will be able to show a phone no matter how large the pic is.

 

[gaz]

Comcentrate on what you are doing not on what others might be doing.So you think that one driver was on the phone and one was textung - how did that affect you?

How did him looking at oncoming traffic and noticing two drivers who where on their phones whilst he was waiting to turn right across their paths equate to him not concentrating?

 

[col]

How did him looking at oncoming traffic and noticing two drivers who where on their phones whilst he was waiting to turn right across their paths equate to him not concentrating?

Objection, it hasnt yet been shown that there were phones in use.

 

[lukesdad]

Comcentrate on what you are doing not on what others might be doing.So you think that one driver was on the phone and one was textung - how did that affect you?

This would depend on the assumption being made in actual time or viewing the vid ?

 

[gaz]

Objection, it hasnt yet been shown that there were phones in use.

So if there aren't phones, does that mean he wasn't concentrating enough on what the drivers where holding and as such was concentrating more on the traffic and when he can turn which as a result proves Mr H's point more absurd.

 

[col]

So if there aren't phones, does that mean he wasn't concentrating enough on what the drivers where holding and as such was concentrating more on the traffic and when he can turn which as a result proves Mr H's point more absurd.

Im not sure what that means, but can you see the phones in question?

 

[lukesdad]

So if there aren't phones, does that mean he wasn't concentrating enough on what the drivers where holding and as such was concentrating more on the traffic and when he can turn which as a result proves Mr H's point more absurd.

Ill repeat where is the assumption made ?

 

[col]

Ill repeat where is the assumption made ?

Ere wait your turn for cross examination

 

[gaz]

Im not sure what that means, but can you see the phones in question?

Well you said that Mr H posts sensible comments, I'm showing by the use of logic, that he does not.

Ill repeat where is the assumption made ?

The assumption of what exactly? I saw your post to Mr H but i'm not sure if you are referencing the drivers concentration or gaz's?
The concentration thing was first pointed out by Mr H and it was aimed at gaz.

 

[col]

Well you said that Mr H posts sensible comments, I'm showing by the use of logic, that he does not.

But can you see the phones??? I think not.

The assumption of what exactly? I saw your post to Mr H but i'm not sure if you are referencing the drivers concentration or gaz's?
The concentration thing was first pointed out by Mr H and it was aimed at gaz.

 

[gaz]

.

I can't comment on your comment, as it is in my quote.

 

[col]

I can't comment on your comment, as it is in my quote.

Ok

 

[classic33]

Mobile phone usage doesn't show up on camera very well, especially if the vehicle is moving - I guess the glass reflections cause problems even if we can see it perfectly.

When they make a camera that can match the human eye it won't be very small or cheap.

Most windscreens are no longer a flat plate of glass, they curve at the sides. A polarizing filter may help, but it would take constant adjustment to keep the image clear. I'd rather keep my mind on riding the bike.

Caught a bus driver using a handheld mobile. I could see it in his hand, but the video didn't show it clear enough. He didn't seem bothered by the one fitted over him, which is the one that backed up the initial complaint to the company. So there is proof that they do work.

A complaint on its own may meet with no response on its own, even with the video. Put the video where the company can be seen in a bad light & I'd say you'll get an answer.

 

[gaz]

Ok

ok i'll answer it. There is not a clear image of either driver holding a phone in my opinion.
By agreeing with you on that, it in turn proves my logic in post 324 correct which in turn proves your comment about Mr H making sensible posts incorrect.

 

[Hip Priest]

If you could show me the phones they were doing this on, i would agree.

I take you point onboard regarding these particular vids. I take Gaz's word for it, but you can't really make out the phones on the vid, so it wouldn't be admissable. I just meant that people who text whilst driving - in general -should lose their licences for a period of time