Reporting mobile use while driving

Discussion in 'Commuting' started by Twenty Inch, 4 Mar 2010.

  1. glasgowcyclist

    glasgowcyclist Charming but somewhat feckless

    He claimed that his character would still need to be able to drive as that was the basis for the programme being shot; a travelogue. He claimed exceptional hardship for the other 15 - 20 professionals who were booked for the show and who'd have difficulty finding another job if his show was cancelled.

    Fine, defer his sentence of a 6-month disqualification until his recording has finished.

    From The Independent:
    Coogan said: “The whole nature of the series is that it is a travelogue and it’s an artistic thing that he drives and that defines his character. You couldn’t put him on a train because that not who he is – it’s part of his character that he drives."

    The comedian said the camera shots could not be faked because he has to be seen driving the vehicle himself.
  2. KneesUp

    KneesUp Veteran

    I'm not too sure about this really. Our car has what we call a 'huft' fitted (because it's referred to as the HFT - hands free telephone - in the manual and the kid wanted to read the manual, and here we are years later still calling it the huft) We don't use it much, but it's very useful and no more distracting than talking to a passenger - you just press a button on the steering wheel and say 'Call Mrs Knees' and it does, and her lovely tones come drifting through the speakers, more melodious than any music you've heard or dreamt of, asking what I want now. Neither of us make outgoing calls much though, it's generally used for incoming calls, and even then not very often. I guess the trick is to make sure the caller knows you are driving, so you might not reply briefly if, say, you are at a busy junction or something. I guess most people give too much attention to the call, and this is why we can't have nice things.
    Scaleyback, Arjimlad and C R like this.
  3. Arjimlad

    Arjimlad Tights of Cydonia

    South Glos
    A man of his resources could have rented a chauffeur, and as for Alan Partridge, have they not heard of a green screen ?
    C R likes this.
  4. Scaleyback

    Scaleyback Well-Known Member

    North Yorkshire
    This seems like all the idiots are not charging around in cars whilst 'ebaying' etc. Some of the idiots are 'out there' drafting legislation.
    I simply cannot believe that when drafting this law they decided to exclude using the mobile to make video. Of course they didn't, they
    simply overlooked this use of the device. As you so rightly say different police forces are going to interpret the legislation . . . err differently.
    Who coined the phrase "the law is an ass" ?
    Illaveago and Arjimlad like this.
  5. Drago

    Drago Flouncing Nobber

    Probably because when the law as draughted video recording phones weren't a thing.
    Arjimlad likes this.
  6. Scaleyback

    Scaleyback Well-Known Member

    North Yorkshire
    Hmm ? Seems first laws relating to driving while using mobile or handheld devices came out in 2003. Much changed since of course. Phones able to take videos have also been around since about that time.
  7. Drago

    Drago Flouncing Nobber

    The laws were proposed, I think, in the nineties and took a while to become law. By the time they did were were living on the moon and all had pet robots.
    Illaveago and Scaleyback like this.
  8. aferris2

    aferris2 Über Member

    It seems that the law is trying to make some uses of a phone legal so has got itself stuck trying to work out how to define what is and is not allowed. The Australian system seems far simpler. You can't touch the phone at all while riding or driving. Haven't found the actual legal documents but this seems to sum it up fairly well.
    Drago and Arjimlad like this.
  9. Arjimlad

    Arjimlad Tights of Cydonia

    South Glos
    Avon & Somerset's policy has just changed.

    Henceforth, they will merely acknowledge receipt of a report and will not provide any information/feedback whatsoever on whether they have sought to prosecute, sent a warning letter, or rolled it up & smoked it.

    They say that they spend far too much time on the ins & outs of why and what and why not, when reporting back to those members of the public who are concerned enough about dangerous driving to go to the bother of reporting it.

    I have made a complaint about this policy. It is especially offensive when reporting the few drivers who deliberately choose to terrify/endanger cyclists.
  10. Drago

    Drago Flouncing Nobber

    What's the motivation for honest citizens to report wrong doers if they're not finding out whether or not they were prosecuted?
    DCBassman and Arjimlad like this.
  11. Arjimlad

    Arjimlad Tights of Cydonia

    South Glos
    @Drago quite. Previously they just said "seeking to prosecute" or "sent a warning letter" which was Spartan enough.

    Is it really too much trouble to inform members of the public who are concerned enough (for themselves and for the rest of the community) to report these dangerous drivers, of the outcomes of their complaints to the Police ?
    Illaveago and Drago like this.
  12. Drago

    Drago Flouncing Nobber

    Nope, I don't think its unreasonable at all. Victims and witnesses of other crimes get that courtesy, and I can't understand why victims of road crime are considered second class in this regard.
    Illaveago, tom73 and Arjimlad like this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice