Using a mobile phone when driving is okay...

[thomas]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp2...=xDefault&itemid=NOED08 May 2009 20:28:33:517

A man caught driving while using his mobile phone for the third time in five months had his driving ban revoked yesterday.

Karl Newton, 38, was told that his six-month driving ban would no longer apply after he told a judge that losing his licence would mean losing his job and the ability to provide for his two children, causing them excessive hardship.

Basically, he used his phone to talk to his children. He had to do this because he's divorced and wouldn't get a chance to talk to them at another point...and he was caught 'dialing' the number for a hotel for a friend who was also in the car. He lost his licence, but this would mean he'd loose his job...etc....so he's had his ban lifted.

Pathetic. When he hits someone because of it will he get let off again?

 

[Joe24]

I disagree. If he needs his licence for his job, then him losing it wont help anyone will it?
Ok he shouldnt of been the twat to get caught using his phone while driving, and to do it so many times, but if he lost his job he wouldnt have any/much income so how can he survive?
Do you think that him losing his licence, then losing his job and not being able to find another job would help much?
If he lost his job what would happen? He would sit at his house, trying to find a job and not working. He keeps his licence he keeps his job and still has an income.
If he does it again though, then he should be banned i think, becaue if he hasnt learnt now then he is a total twat.

 

[Black Sheep]

they should have the option to fine the driver because otherwise its not really a deterrent is it?

that or they should have to re-take their test to clear the points from their licence, then they have to serve a two year probation period where the only vehicle they are allowed to drive is a pink reliant robin

that'll learn em!

 

[thomas]

If he does it again though, then he should be banned i think, becaue if he hasnt learnt now then he is a total twat.

He hasn't learnt his lesson. He's already been given points which are the warning. This is just a mockery and he'll probably continue to use his phone as "well...they've let me off once, they'll let me off again". He should have thought about it before hand.

He works about 18.5 miles away from home and his wife is 12.5 miles away. He fusses about there not being appropriate public transport for either...but he could (potentially) cycle that if he had no other choice.

I'd rather he lost his job, than he kills me when not paying attention using his phone. Life before livelihood.

What example does it set for anyone else who can argue the same circumstances?

One of my friend's Dads got caught drink driving (his car ended up in a ditch) and quite rightly he got his licence taken away. This had implications on his job as well but it was still the right thing to do (and probably fairly lenient).

 

[downfader]

I disagree. If he needs his licence for his job, then him losing it wont help anyone will it?
Ok he shouldnt of been the twat to get caught using his phone while driving, and to do it so many times, but if he lost his job he wouldnt have any/much income so how can he survive?
Do you think that him losing his licence, then losing his job and not being able to find another job would help much?
If he lost his job what would happen? He would sit at his house, trying to find a job and not working. He keeps his licence he keeps his job and still has an income.
If he does it again though, then he should be banned i think, becaue if he hasnt learnt now then he is a total twat.

Thats bunkum, mate. He knows the score and chose to be selfish. If I went around doing something equally as dangerous I'd expect to be punished for it, and he hasnt even been given a slap on the wrist.

They should have banned him, then forced him to retake his tests after a set period at his own cost.

If he cared that much for his kids and his job he would have put the phone away or used a hands free connector. (They're about 6 blimmin quid now in places so theres no excuse)

 

[Will1985]

The rules are there for a reason and everybody has to abide by them.

The public transport excuse is a load of cobblers. I know for a fact that it is possible to travel from Poringland into the centre and then out to Wroxham on virtually the same route as used by cars. Same goes for getting to the track - bus into Norwich and then train to Attleborough. This is not hard, just time consuming.
Maybe he should take up cycling - doesn't take me that long and most of the roads are safe.

Riding back from Brighton yesterday I spotted quite a few people on their phones in London. There is clearly not an effective deterrent at the moment. I was thinking the other day that mobile phone companies should be able to calculate phone velocities and temporarily block any phones travelling over 20mph (or whatever), but then passengers would suffer too!!

 

[hackbike 666]

I doubt if the phone companies really care.

 

[thomas]

I doubt if the phone companies really care.

I don't think the emphasis should be on car companies....as, cars can do more than 70mph which would be illegal on public roads.

From memory, I think some mobile phone manufactures are looking into technology to stop phones from working, but I can't remember where I read or dreamt that

 

[Will1985]

Companies don't have to care...the government can just enforce it.

I don't think the emphasis should be on car companies....as, cars can do more than 70mph which would be illegal on public roads.

Eh? You do or don't think? I believe that the technology is now around which limits speed via GPS on roads and then de-restricts on tracks. This has got to be a sensible thing (but I would say 80 for the motorway) since anyone found to be breaking it can be shown to have broken the law both by speeding and tampering with a limiting device (assuming blanket enforcement).

 

[thomas]

Eh? You do or don't think? I believe that the technology is now around which limits speed via GPS on roads and then de-restricts on tracks. This has got to be a sensible thing (but I would say 80 for the motorway) since anyone found to be breaking it can be shown to have broken the law both by speeding and tampering with a limiting device (assuming blanket enforcement).

I don't think that mobile phone companies should have to make phones not work when someone is driving. The analogy was, that car companies don't have to make cars that are speed limited at the moment which would be a similar concept.

The Nissan GTR is speed limited for the nation roads, but knows when it gets to a race track (or does in Japan anyway). Not sure if other Japanese cars are too.

I wouldn't be for limiting car's speed limits...but that's just because I like to be reckless and do 72mph on motorways.

 

[peanut]

could always get him to do 200 hours community service. Not only would it be a good deterent it would put something back into the community and pay for the court and Police time wasted.
I was nearly killed by a stupid woman driving whilst on the cell fone and looking down into the footwell

 

[thomas]

I was nearly killed by a stupid woman driving whilst on the cell fone and looking down into the footwell

If you can't remember which peddle is which you probably shouldn't be allowed to drive anyway!

 

[peanut]

If you can't remember which peddle is which you probably shouldn't be allowed to drive anyway!

I think she was looking for her makeup

 

[hackbike 666]

If you can't remember which peddle is which you probably shouldn't be allowed to drive anyway!

Pedal?

 

[thomas]

Pedal?

oopppsss...I should watch my spooling!