My video has been rejected from Youtube? Why?

[BSRU]

YouTube(Google) are very quick to ban videos as they use US law instead of EU law with regards to privacy and are scared of being sued.

 

[Peowpeowpeowlasers]

Upload it again using a random new account, give us the link. I'll host it on my channel, I suspect others will do the same.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I recall a video you referenced on this forum of a chappie sitting at a red light while on the 'phone.

He was in a van (or similar) from a motorcycle training centre.

If that's the one, I do not think its loss to the wider population will be keenly felt.

It seemed no worse to me than many other instances of poor road use committed by motorists, cyclist and the like.

Time, I think, to concentrate on enjotying your riding and not on the petty infringements of those around you.

A naughty part of my mind begins at this point to wonder whether you've posted footage of yourself using a mobile phone while out on a club ride....

Get on your bike, concentrate on your own riding and things like the disappearence of a clip from Youtube will seem as nothing.

 

[dawesome]

People gassing on mobiles whilst driving are distracted to the same degree as drunk drivers. Drunk drivers and drivers on mobiles are scum, people who defend them or try to excuse their failings are apologists for people who killed twelve times last year.

 

[mr_hippo]

People gassing on mobiles whilst driving are distracted to the same degree as drunk drivers. Drunk drivers and drivers on mobiles are scum, people who defend them or try to excuse their failings are apologists for people who killed twelve times last year.

Proof?

 

[Boris Bajic]

People gassing on mobiles whilst driving are distracted to the same degree as drunk drivers. Drunk drivers and drivers on mobiles are scum, people who defend them or try to excuse their failings are apologists for people who killed twelve times last year.

I used to drive a Volkwagen. Does that make me an apologist for the bestial excesses of the NS regime?

I have a Japanese television. Does that make me an apologist for the slaughter in Hong Kong in December 1941?

I occasionally take calls on my mobile when cycling. Does that make me an apologist for seal culling?

All this guilt is beginning to wear me out. Cripes! At least I'm not bitter about it.

 

[dawesome]

Proof?

I think you meant "Have you got a source for that please?"

Is having a cell phone pressed to your ear while behind the wheel the equivalent of driving while intoxicated? According to a study by University of Utah psychologists, the answer is, unfortunately, yes.​

"Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cell phone and drive," writes David Strayer, a psychology professor and the study's lead author. "The level of impairment is very similar.​

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html

Talking on a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than being over the legal alcohol limit, according to research.
Tests by scientists at the Transport Research Laboratory said drivers on mobiles had slower reaction times and stopping times than those under the influence of alcohol.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm

Using a mobile phone whilst driving may be as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol as reaction times can be significantly slowed and concentration adversely affected, according to a study by insurance group yesinsurance.co.uk.​

The study into various risks associated with driving for insurance purposes found that the majority of the UK’s driving population own and regularly use a mobile phone whilst driving, news which many have found worrying as a result of the known risks of driving whilst speaking on the phone.​

Despite legislative measures to prevent drivers from using hand-held mobile phone units whilst driving, the study reflects that many are still choosing to ignore the rules, with 24% of drivers regularly using their hand held unit whilst driving.​

Additionally, the report highlighted hands-free mobile telephones as equaling the risk of driving under the influence of alcohol, as a major distraction requiring distinct concentration apart from driving and the road ahead, which had previously been considered a safer alternative.​

http://www.insurancedaily.co.uk/200...vers-30-less-responsive-than-drunk-motorists/

If I saw a drunk person got in their car I'd take their keys. If they resisted, I'd put them on the floor, people who defend drunk drivers or drivers on mobiles are despicable.

 

[dawesome]

Is there another source for the FBS ABC Motorcycle Training clip of the driver on the phone?

 

[mr_hippo]

I think you meant "Have you got a source for that please?"
.

If I meant that then I would have said it.

 

[dawesome]

If you compare the number of people who admit using a mobile whilst driving with the conviction rates fewer than 4% of offenders get caught, presumably FBS ABC Motorcycle Training chose to whine and snivel to Youtube to get the clip deleted.

 

[gaz]

Proof?

There are studies that show that driving whilst using a phone is more dangerous than being drunk. Source 1 and some videos from mythbusters

 

[BentMikey]

If I meant that then I would have said it.

Have you watched the mythbusters episode on phone driving vs drink driving? It's very educational, and I suspect you might enjoy the clip. Search YouTube for it, it's well worth the time.

 

[mr_hippo]

WOW!!! You cite Mythbusters as credible research - it is an entertainment programme, you might as well put Del Boy as a replacement for Lord Sugar in The Apprentice.
Years ago it was 'proved' that decaff coffee was better than ordinary coffee and a lot of people switched over and was later 'proved' that it was worse for you.
Stats and research can 'prove' almost anything - if you put ypur head in a freezer and your feet in an oven at gas mark 5, overall you will be at a comfortable temperature\
Ban mobile phones because they are a distraction but what about other distractions like passengers, children, GPS, CDs & radio?.Are you banning them too along with MP3 players and ear phones for cyclists?
Drinking and driving? I am in favour of zero tolerence. Ant alcohol in the bloodstream means an automatic lifetime ban - no mitigating circumstances

 

[dawesome]

Ban mobile phones because they are a distraction but what about other distractions like passengers, children, GPS, CDs & radio?.Are you banning them too along with MP3 players and ear phones for cyclists?

Not a valid comparison. Think about it, the distracting part of having a conversation on a mobile isn't merely the act of holding the phone. In face-to-face communication us humans rely on a great deal of non-verbal clues- body language, facial expression, gestures etc. With a conversation on a phone these clues are stripped away so the listener has to concentrate harder to ascertain what they are listening to. Not anywhere near as distracting as listening to the radio. The studies show that using a mobile whilst driving impairs ability the same as being drunk:

The study found that compared with undistracted drivers:​

• Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk.
• Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet more aggressively. They followed the pace car more closely, were twice as likely to brake only four seconds before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force. “Neither accident rates, nor reaction times to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly” from undistracted drivers, the researchers write.

The lack of accidents among the study’s intoxicated drivers may have been because it was conducted in morning hours when participants were well rested. However, most drunken driving accidents occur late at night when drivers are fatigued and their average blood alcohol content (BAC) levels are also twice the legal .08 level used in the research.​

 

[gaz]

WOW!!! You cite Mythbusters as credible research - it is an entertainment programme, you might as well put Del Boy as a replacement for Lord Sugar in The Apprentice.
Years ago it was 'proved' that decaff coffee was better than ordinary coffee and a lot of people switched over and was later 'proved' that it was worse for you.
Stats and research can 'prove' almost anything - if you put ypur head in a freezer and your feet in an oven at gas mark 5, overall you will be at a comfortable temperature\
Ban mobile phones because they are a distraction but what about other distractions like passengers, children, GPS, CDs & radio?.Are you banning them too along with MP3 players and ear phones for cyclists?
Drinking and driving? I am in favour of zero tolerence. Ant alcohol in the bloodstream means an automatic lifetime ban - no mitigating circumstances

Read this