Random Irritations

[Sid Rixon IV]

A lot of his indiscretions I've sug read of

Hit Send too soon.
Suggest a condition or disorder that make him oblivious to the outcome of his remarks and actions.
(I'm not defending that).

 

[Orikoru]

It's not a money making exercise is it, he was reported by a member of the public for using his mobile while driving . The law is very clear, you can see in the video he knows he's been busted.

The law is an ass, as they say.

 

[Beezerk]

People slowly but surely starting to dominate the forum again

 

[hambugerpete]

Ok, you're driving along the motorway and there's a big smash up ahead. Road totally blocked. Tailback for miles. Calls home. "I'm in a big queue, there's been an accident, I'll be home late''
£200 fine and 6 points?

No because I have hands free also if the road is blocked I'll be switching the car off and putting the handbrake on so I am parked , what's your next what if going to be ?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

He was also fired from Inside the Factory a few years ago because of comments he made to female staff working in the factories. He must be really thick not to realise his behaviour is wrong.
And I get the "It's his generation" thing. He is only 6 years older than me and I was brought up to know things like that are wrong. Even after spending 30+ years in the military where things could get a bit 'industrial' I know how to read the room and act accordingly.

It’s prob as Amanda said - a belief of being the big I am and thinking the rules don’t affect him

 

[SteveW86]

Nice phrase

He wasn't driving or operating his vehicle, the vehicle was stopped in a traffic jam and was causing no danger or harm to anyone

It was a nice phrase wasn’t it.

I don’t agree with it, but it is the law. Whilst annoying if you get caught, I do agree that these things need to be black and white. Too much grey area of room for interpretation and we end up with something like VAR in football.

 

[SteveW86]

The cars behind him beeping

Disappointed you beat me to this. Damn work getting in the way

 

[Arthur Wedge]

The cars behind him beeping

 

[bobmac]

It was a nice phrase wasn’t it.

I don’t agree with it, but it is the law.

My position too.
I won't do it because it's the law but doesn't mean I can't disagree with it being applied to people not moving the car.

No because I have hands free also if the road is blocked I'll be switching the car off and putting the handbrake on so I am parked , what's your next what if going to be ?

''The evidence shows that using a hands-free device creates the same risks of a collision as using a hand-held device, and it is therefore inappropriate for the law to condone it by omission.''

How do you know when the light changes if you have your eyes down on the phone

Peripheral vision.

 

[cliveb]

I see nobody has commented on my observation that there's no law prohibiting operating the car's infotainment system, even when in motion.
You're allowed to operate a phone that's mounted in a cradle - again, even when in motion.
It's only specifically prohibited if you hold the device in your hand - even if you're stationary.

Using a phone, sat nav or other device when driving

It’s illegal to hold a phone or a sat nav while driving - you'll get penalty points, a fine and can be banned from driving.

www.gov.uk

Yes, there's the "being in proper control of the vehicle" offense, but the penalty here is just 3 points (even if you're moving), while you get 6 points for using a handheld device when stationary in a traffic jam.

Seriously: who here genuinely thinks the law on this issue makes sense?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I see nobody has commented on my observation that there's no law prohibiting operating the car's infotainment system, even when in motion.
You're allowed to operate a phone that's mounted in a cradle - again, even when in motion.
It's only specifically prohibited if you hold the device in your hand - even if you're stationary.

Using a phone, sat nav or other device when driving

It’s illegal to hold a phone or a sat nav while driving - you'll get penalty points, a fine and can be banned from driving.

www.gov.uk

Yes, there's the "being in proper control of the vehicle" offense, but the penalty here is just 3 points (even if you're moving), while you get 6 points for using a handheld device when stationary in a traffic jam.

Seriously: who here genuinely thinks the law on this issue makes sense?

It’s 6 points for using your handheld device at any time when in the car and engine is on etc etc - not just when in traffic stationary

It’s a blanket rule - not sure they can differentiate between when the car is moving and when it’s stopped in traffic etc etc

 

[bobmac]

I see nobody has commented on my observation that there's no law prohibiting operating the car's infotainment system, even when in motion.
You're allowed to operate a phone that's mounted in a cradle - again, even when in motion.
It's only specifically prohibited if you hold the device in your hand - even if you're stationary.

Using a phone, sat nav or other device when driving

It’s illegal to hold a phone or a sat nav while driving - you'll get penalty points, a fine and can be banned from driving.

www.gov.uk

Yes, there's the "being in proper control of the vehicle" offense, but the penalty here is just 3 points (even if you're moving), while you get 6 points for using a handheld device when stationary in a traffic jam.

Seriously: who here genuinely thinks the law on this issue makes sense?

Not I, but that's just my opinion

 

[Lord Tyrion]

He was also fired from Inside the Factory a few years ago because of comments he made to female staff working in the factories. He must be really thick not to realise his behaviour is wrong.
And I get the "It's his generation" thing. He is only 6 years older than me and I was brought up to know things like that are wrong. Even after spending 30+ years in the military where things could get a bit 'industrial' I know how to read the room and act accordingly.

He could just about get away with that first time around. The fact that he kept behaving that way knocks it on the head.

I'm the same age as you and agree that I know the behaviour was wrong and have done for a very long time, I don't want to ponder what might have been said in the 80's . Background and age do not excuse what he has done, 100% doesn't.

 

[hambugerpete]

I see nobody has commented on my observation that there's no law prohibiting operating the car's infotainment system, even when in motion.
You're allowed to operate a phone that's mounted in a cradle - again, even when in motion.
It's only specifically prohibited if you hold the device in your hand - even if you're stationary.

Using a phone, sat nav or other device when driving

It’s illegal to hold a phone or a sat nav while driving - you'll get penalty points, a fine and can be banned from driving.

www.gov.uk

Yes, there's the "being in proper control of the vehicle" offense, but the penalty here is just 3 points (even if you're moving), while you get 6 points for using a handheld device when stationary in a traffic jam.

Seriously: who here genuinely thinks the law on this issue makes sense?

Like in golf there are times when the rules seem unfair and OTT, but making loads of exceptions would just create too many grey areas. It's not a tough rule to follow and it's easy enough to answer calls and reply to texts etc without the need to touch your phone , so there really is no excuse

 

[cliveb]

It’s 6 points for using your handheld device at any time when in the car and engine is on etc etc - not just when in traffic stationary

It’s a blanket rule - not sure they can differentiate between when the car is moving and when it’s stopped in traffic etc etc

Like in golf there are times when the rules seem unfair and OTT, but making loads of exceptions would just create too many grey areas. It's not a tough rule to follow and it's easy enough to answer calls and reply to texts etc without the need to touch your phone , so there really is no excuse

You're both still avoiding the question I posed.
Why is there a SPECIFIC offence regarding handheld devices, when the existing "not in proper control" offence already exists and could easily cover it?
And why is it DOUBLE the penalty for this specific offence?
Explain to me why this distinction makes sense. And please: just saying "that's the law, obey it" adds nothing to the debate.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You're both still avoiding the question I posed.
Why is there a SPECIFIC offence regarding handheld devices, when the existing "not in proper control" offence already exists and could easily cover it?
And why is it DOUBLE the penalty for this specific offence?
Explain to me why this distinction makes sense. And please: just saying "that's the law, obey it" adds nothing to the debate.

Because most very likely the law is evidence-based, and just because we on this forum do not have the evidence to hand that does not mean that the evidence and hence the rationale behind the law are not solid.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

You're both still avoiding the question I posed.
Why is there a SPECIFIC offence regarding handheld devices, when the existing "not in proper control" offence already exists and could easily cover it?
And why is it DOUBLE the penalty for this specific offence?
Explain to me why this distinction makes sense. And please: just saying "that's the law, obey it" adds nothing to the debate.

Because handheld device is a physical item that is easily identifiable which can cause distraction

Where as someone can get distracted by other means as well in the car - rubber necking in one for example

 

[D-S]

On Gregg - not sticking up for him in any way, shape or form, but Johnny Vaughan made a good point on the radio when I was driving home yesterday. Did anyone tell him he was being inappropriate at the time? It seems like these days you get the witch hunt and trial by media a long time after the fact, with people banding together. If he'd have just been told the first couple of times that he was inappropriate, maybe he would have packed it in sooner? Or maybe he was and he ignored them, I don't know. You just seem to get this massive pile-on to a different celeb every couple of months. Not so long ago it was Russell Brand, but that's all disappeared now it seems.

It’s not like he wasn’t told (apart from being fired from a show for inappropriate remarks to factory workers’).
“We have also found that Wallace was warned by the BBC after a complaint was raised about him in 2018 about the show Impossible Celebrities.”

“In a subsequent letter, which we have also seen, a BBC executive said she had held a 90-minute meeting with Wallace to make clear "how seriously the BBC takes this matter".

It seems as he was arrogant enough just to carry on with another employer.

I agree however that many people, must have heard what he said and just dismissed what made other people uncomfortable as ‘banter’.

I hope they are having a look at themselves now. None of this in any way excuses repeated unacceptable behaviour in any way at all.

 

[hambugerpete]

You're both still avoiding the question I posed.
Why is there a SPECIFIC offence regarding handheld devices, when the existing "not in proper control" offence already exists and could easily cover it?
And why is it DOUBLE the penalty for this specific offence?
Explain to me why this distinction makes sense. And please: just saying "that's the law, obey it" adds nothing to the debate.

I'm not avoiding any questions. Mobile phones usage was banned long ago but needed extending to cover modern smartphones. That this penalty seems disproportionate to the offence makes no difference.

 

[cliveb]

OK, I'm going to do a Bob and duck out of this particular issue (handheld devices in cars).
It's now obvious that rational debate is impossible with some people.