Using a mobile phone when driving is okay...

[Black Sheep]

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.

thats been done due to the power and speed that the GTR has. think it just puts an upper restriction on of something like 80mph but can't remember exactly.


with regard speed restriction in cars, your taking away responsibility and control from the driver which will lead to carelessness in many cars you can set either a restrictor for the road your on or a verbal warning that tells you that your over the speed limit

tom tom sat navs have an over speed warning

or, you could keep an eye on the speedo which has worked for me for eight years.

personally i'm against limiting as there are a few times i've felt no option but to speed on public roads, one was to get out of the way of a truck wandering across into my lane on the motorway, quickest and safest way was to accelerate and get out of the way.

the other was to complete an overtaking maneuver of a tractor on a 40mph road, accelerate slightly above limit and then reduce speed back to the limit - this has been explained to me as safe and legal by various people over the years. this is to minimumise the time spent on the wrong side of the road, not to fit an overtake into a short straight stretch.

 

[thomas]

thats been done due to the power and speed that the GTR has. think it just puts an upper restriction on of something like 80mph but can't remember exactly.

Quite possibly. I'll watch the Top Gear episode later to find out

personally i'm against limiting as there are a few times i've felt no option but to speed on public roads, one was to get out of the way of a truck wandering across into my lane on the motorway, quickest and safest way was to accelerate and get out of the way.
this has been explained to me as safe and legal by various people over the years.

I disagree completely that it is legal. The maximum speed limit is the most you are allowed to do - ever.

Having said that, I completely agree that it can be the safer thing

My driving instructor taught me to go a little bit faster than 70 when overtaking on motorways. I would agree that it is safer to go a little bit faster to get past and I don't think the police would pull you up for a few miles an hour extra when overtaking.

I think, speeding up on the motorway rather than braking is the better option as you should never brake on motorways and if you read the road you never need to. Braking on motorways shows a total lack of anticipation and probably shows that you're driving too aggressively.

In the real world, excluding speed cameras/average SCs, if you go a bit over the speed limit you're not going to get pulled over/in trouble. You'd have to be doing at least 90 to 100MPH before you'd get pulled over for speeding on a motorway.

it is possible that without this contribution he's not allowed to see his kids?

It sounds like his wife could make it hard. I don't see why he couldn't pull over and use his phone though.

 

[Black Sheep]

To punish him better, heavier fines, and make him have a small car and have it restricted to a certain speed. That will stop him.
Restrict it to 40mph, he can still get around, but not go too fast or far.

and if he tries to go on a dual carageway or motorway then he'll be at risk of causing an accident due to being too slow, possibly slow enough to be classed as restricting flow of traffic.

i think the bright pink reliant robin would be a better deterrent

+1

You might sympathise when taking a call from his kids - but how would he have known who was calling? And then making a call for somebody who was in the car beside him? This guy is obviously totally cynical about observance of the law, or seriously stupid, as is the judge who has put a dangerous driver back out on the roads.

my phone has a different ring tone for when my fiancee rings, if its that ring tone i'll make an effort to find somewhere to stop sooner and ring her back than if anyone else rings

during my summer job i was often driving for 3+ hours a day and my boss used to comment that i was the only one who took ages to answer the phone / missed the call and had to ring back

its a bit blooming hard to answer the phone when trying to find your way through cardiff road works!

If you were in the guys situation, and you needed the licence for your job, would you not give it a go then? Use the excuse in court that you need your licence.
I bet most of you would do, and why not if it might work.

basically he gambled with both his license and job and lost

he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy

The article states he only makes voluntary contributions to his ex wife who has custady of the kids. Sounds a bit fishy if you ask me. Why would you say voluntary contributions as opposed to being compelled by a financial arrangement or the CSA making you pay a sum each month? Well fishy. The ex wife probably maintains their kids with her income and or benefits and doesn't hold her breath when she is going to get the next donation from her ex Newton. Please.......... It all sounds very fishy indeed.

i assumed that a voluntary contribution is basically that he and his ex wife have come to their own arrangement instead of it being forced by the court that he has to pay x amount per month. instead he has chosen to support his children instead of being told he has to.

it is possible that without this contribution he's not allowed to see his kids?

 

[Nigeyy]

I understand the point that if he lost is job, it could be very easy for him to become a non-productive citizen, quite possibly to the detriment of everyone involved. I also understand that he knew the rules, and still did it, and that potentially he's endangering other road users around him -and that really is a huge deal. I can see both sides to the argument.

I wonder if he could be given a sentence where he cannot use his car for personal use or to travel to and from work for some months, but can move his machinery for employment purposes? That way he either (i) experiences the inconvenience of public transport, or (ii) assuming he's physically capable, cycle commutes to work and thus should gain a better understanding of why it's a good idea for vehicle drivers not to be texting/calling on phones?

Perhaps that way there's a better chance of him remaining employed, being productive plus he might truly realize why it's not a good idea to be on the phone. Oh yeah, without a doubt for me, if you do it again, that's it, license suspended.

Maybe this could be enforced by simply having a police officer drop by now and again to his house to make sure his car is still in the driveway, or by his work to make sure it's not there?

 

[thomas]

Perhaps that way there's a better chance of him remaining employed, being productive plus he might truly realize why it's not a good idea to be on the phone. Oh yeah, without a doubt for me, if you do it again, that's it, license suspended.

Maybe this could be enforced by simply having a police officer drop by now and again to his house to make sure his car is still in the driveway, or by his work to make sure it's not there?

It would cost more to enforce a scheme like that than the benefits from it. Why should you be allowed the right to drive, for certain things? You could argue that he needs his car to go into Norwich city centre for social events. Without social stimulation this could bring on medical conditions such as depression from the isolation, etc.

 

[Bollo]

Can I cut through the legal niceties by suggesting that his fingers should be broken with a hammer?

 

[Nigeyy]

You could be right, though I suspect that all said and done, it wouldn't surprize me if it was cheaper.

People usually drive a car for only 3 reasons: 1. to get to work or for work, 2. pleasure/social and 3. for shopping/errands. If you get rid of everything except for work, it becomes mightily inconvenient for the vast majority of people who do drive. It might give someone pause for thought before they use that phone again......

Like it or not, by him not working it might do more harm than good for the rest of us. By him possibly having to cycle to work or faffing about car pooling or on public transport, it may well be the best education and result for all of us.

It would cost more to enforce a scheme like that than the benefits from it. Why should you be allowed the right to drive, for certain things? You could argue that he needs his car to go into Norwich city centre for social events. Without social stimulation this could bring on medical conditions such as depression from the isolation, etc.

 

[hackbike 666]

Yes he should take responsibility for his own actions and not blame everyone else.

 

[Joe24]

Yes i realise that when he goes onto a motorway or dual carriageway he would be going slow and not fast enough. This means he wont be able to go anywhere fast, which i think will really frustrate him.
It would frustrate alot of people if they cant go at their normal speeds on the road, and not go very far, fast.
But ofcourse, cyclist go slower then the car does on dual carriageways, so are you saying they shouldnt be allowed on because they are going too slow and may restrict flow?


I do like the idea of the bright pink robin reliant. Maybe with big writing on saying, "I am tit and used my phone while driving and look what i got"
But with the car being so small it will just say "I am a tit"

 

[thomas]

I do like the idea of the bright pink robin reliant. Maybe with big writing on saying, "I am tit and used my phone while driving and look what i got"
But with the car being so small it will just say "I am a tit"

I could maybe accept him driving still if he had to drive a bright pink Reliant Robin.

Maybe his fines should be spent on repainting his car a lovely neon shade of pink....all of a sudden that job doesn't look so appealing

That might be a better deterrent to loosing your license. Simply ruin someone's reputation and a cars resale value in one go - paint it some god awful colour.