Guy driving behind you..

[Nate]

..has his mobile to his ear, a police car is nearby but hasn't noticed him yet and he hasn't noticed them. Would you try to get their attention? I was wondering this as some chav was driving behind me in his saxo with his loud exhaust the other day, alas there was no police car nearby so I carried on and moved lanes as soon as I could to get out of the way. He really didn't seem to be paying attention to the road and I sure as hell didn't want to have to get my car repaired again because of someone elses shit driving.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Most likely what would happen is you get pulled over for waving your hand at the police and the guy driving like he is will get less attention.

Avoid crash, take safe distance, let police notice or not.

 

[Sparx]

I see people on phones far too much, i've almost been hit twice by people on their phones. Police cars next to them and everything. They dont care

 

[Zenith.UK]

If I see someone on their phone and there is a reasonable chance they'll see me, I shake my head while holding my hand like a phone. If they choose to ignore me or give me the V's, that's up to them. All I'm doing is reminding them that they shouldn't be doing it.

There was one occasion where I was in a queue of traffic across a junction and one of the drivers on the side was on their phone. I didn't move my van until I caught their eye, got them to stop using their phone and put it down. Then I drove off. The whole episode lasted maybe 20secs.

The odd thing is that I see a lot of van and lorry drivers doing it, when I would have thought they would be the first to get a headset.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If I see someone on their phone and there is a reasonable chance they'll see me, I shake my head while holding my hand like a phone.

That would most likely enduse an opposite reaction of "making wanking gesture while shaking head" from me :lol:

No offense, but it does seem a bit "condescending"(someone probably can tell me a better word) to do that.

 

[TdC]

it's not allowed to use a non-handsfree phone in cars in Holland, and the fines can be awesome, depending on your behavior. also, I imagine that if you happen to cause or be involved in an accident while yakking to your mates the police will not be very friendly and neither will your insurance.

 

[ford prefect]

it's not allowed to use a non-handsfree phone in cars in Holland, and the fines can be awesome, depending on your behavior. also, I imagine that if you happen to cause or be involved in an accident while yakking to your mates the police will not be very friendly and neither will your insurance.

It's not allowed here in the UK anymore, doesn't stop people though. I saw a driving instructor on the motorway the other day with with a phone pressed against his ear/shoulder and writing in a diary resting on his steering wheel, booking an apponitment or something I assume. He was doing about 75mph down the M1. Britannia Driving school must have very high standards is all I can say.

 

[TdC]

lol that's bad specially when the price of a carkit isn't that high. I actually have a poor-man's kit, eg a holder for my phone and a bluetooth ear-thingy and that cost about 15 euros.

 

[Nate]

The odd thing is that I see a lot of van and lorry drivers doing it, when I would have thought they would be the first to get a headset.

Yeah, I saw a program a while back where a van got stopped for just that and he blamed his boss. Rung him up on the spot and told him that he just cost him a ticket. Now theres two problems here that I can see, the guy is obviously being pushed by his boss to be able to be on the phone at all times but also he doesn't care enough about the law to tell him before this happened that he shouldn't have to do this. Then again theres the issue that if he made a biggy about it before running in with the police he would have probably lost his job. Bit of a catch 22 I guess.

 

[PLightstar]

See that kind of thing all the time on the motorway or in town, taught myself to ignore it and keep a safe distance, used to really get on my nerves but my GF tells me to be a calmer driver lol.

 

[Raven]

Its pretty much the same attitude as the retards that do 50 in a 30 zone. "I am a safe driver!" Or those that drink drive. They are until they kill someone.

People who drive like twats should get an instant 6 points and a massive fine, £60 and 3 points just isn't enough. The only way to stop it is for the police to actively stop it. Speed cameras are fine for catching people speeding but useless for anything else, the problem is now that we have thousands of cameras we have even less police on the road.

 

[00dave]

Yeah, I saw a program a while back where a van got stopped for just that and he blamed his boss. Rung him up on the spot and told him that he just cost him a ticket. Now theres two problems here that I can see, the guy is obviously being pushed by his boss to be able to be on the phone at all times but also he doesn't care enough about the law to tell him before this happened that he shouldn't have to do this. Then again theres the issue that if he made a biggy about it before running in with the police he would have probably lost his job. Bit of a catch 22 I guess.

Bingo, therein lies the problem.

When I was in the RAF they expected us to call places before we arrived, to call the op centre with ETAs, progress reports, etc. Now if we were driving cars or small vans we could have pulled over to talk, but 20+ tons of articulated truck isn't something you can just pull up to the side of the road with so we were expected to call while driving. We were given nokia 3310s with no headsets and a sheet of paper to record every call we made and it's duration so most of the time it was a case of use your own phone to avoid getting punished for not recording the correct duration. In short employers of drivers should be legally made to provide hands free kits if they expect phone calls on the road.

 

[Sparx]

My employer provides hands free, anyone with a company car gets a kit installed, anyone with a van gets headset. Job done

EDIT: that obviously doesnt include bus drivers as they can and will get sacked on the spot for using a mobile even sitting in the cab

 

[ford prefect]

I just ignore my phone. I'm very good at it, I get a lot of practice. I ignore it in work all the time and I ignore the in-laws when they ring too, I like caller ID. I don't like answering machines though, they give the impression I might phone back at some point.

 

[Cyradix]

My employer started installing hands free too (parrots). Works really good.
The fine over here in Belgium for using your phone while driving is 130 euro (if they are in a good mood) so well worth it imo

 

[Nate]

You have talking parrots to answer your phones? Ingenious!

 

[Zenith.UK]

My company point blank REFUSED to buy me a headset when the new law came in, even when I pointed out that they expected me to answer while driving. I said I'd buy one on expenses and my boss said that he wouldn't authorise it. So I told him that I wouldn't answer a single call while driving then and there was nothing he could do about it because I was obeying the law and following company guidelines.

So now they call me, the phone rings and I ignore it. If they leave a message, I pull over at the next convenient parking place or junction and listen to the message. The message is almost always "Bloody hell! Why can't you just pick up the phone??? Give us a ring back please, we need you to..."

All for the sake of a £30 bluetooth headset.

 

[Bodhi]

This practice, much like speeding, doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact it strikes me as lowest common denominator legislation at its finest. Frankyl, if you are unable to do something menial like have a conversation and drive at the same time, you shouldn't really be allowed to drive in the first place. I find it no different to talking to a passenger, except the conversation is interspersed with "Hang on mate, need another gear".

Mobile phone use doesn't cause accidents, bad driving does.

 

[DaGaffer]

This practice, much like speeding, doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact it strikes me as lowest common denominator legislation at its finest. Frankyl, if you are unable to do something menial like have a conversation and drive at the same time, you shouldn't really be allowed to drive in the first place. I find it no different to talking to a passenger, except the conversation is interspersed with "Hang on mate, need another gear".

Mobile phone use doesn't cause accidents, bad driving does.

Have to disagree here. Thing about speeding is that most of the time it actually heightens concentration and the driver pays more attention to the road. Not the case with mobile phone use at all. Its all very well saying you should be able to do both, but even the best drivers are impaired if they're driving one-handed or have a handset tucked into their neck; and when you're having a mobile conversation, unlike with a passenger in the car, the person on the other end doesn't instantly know when they need to shut up and let you concentrate. If I use a handset while driving, I know my attention to the road deteriorates; even with a handsfree my concentration isn't 100% and I'd consider myself an average driver.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Do people seriously drive with both hands on the wheel?

I mean, leisure driving not "navigate through a cityblock" driving.

 

[Scouse]

People who drive like twats should get an instant 6 points and a massive fine, £60 and 3 points just isn't enough.

Actually, increasing the "deterrent" is consistently found to be ineffective. It makes bugger all difference.

"Bloody hell! Why can't you just pick up the phone??? Give us a ring back please, we need you to..."

Have you taken the time to play these messages back to your employer before calling him tighter than a scot's arse?

 

[Scouse]

I find it no different to talking to a passenger, except the conversation is interspersed with "Hang on mate, need another gear".

Mobile phone use doesn't cause accidents, bad driving does.

Actually, the science shows that for about 80% of people it DOES effect their driving when compared with in-cab conversation.

It mightn't affect yours - but, seriously, do you want more women yacking on the phone whilst driving? They're bad enough as it is

 

[Bodhi]

Actually, the science shows that for about 80% of people it DOES effect their driving when compared with in-cab conversation.

It mightn't affect yours - but, seriously, do you want more women yacking on the phone whilst driving? They're bad enough as it is

A better question would be - Do I want women driving full stop?

 

[Raven]

Actually, increasing the "deterrent" is consistently found to be ineffective. It makes bugger all difference.

Well it would. Do it once then you either don't do it again or you get caught again and lose the ability to do it for a third time.

 

[Bahumat]

That would most likely enduse an opposite reaction of "making wanking gesture while shaking head" from me :lol:

No offense, but it does seem a bit "condescending"(someone probably can tell me a better word) to do that.

If you did all that shaking my way i'd probably ejaculate

 

[kirennia]

Its pretty much the same attitude as the retards that do 50 in a 30 zone. "I am a safe driver!" Or those that drink drive. They are until they kill someone.

Indeed. A friend of mine had to go to one of these driving courses for speeding and getting a ticket where quite suprisingly, something was learnt from the apparently mind numbing 3 hour session. I realise this'll sound plain obvious but it's only really obvious when you think about it.

If you're travelling at 30mph and end up braking and hitting someone at 5mph, the equivalent speed you'd be travelling when hitting them while braking from 40mph, isn't 15...it's more like 25mph where the chances of survival decrease from some 90%+ chance down to next to nothing.

It's the same argument as you can say to bikers...you can be the safest driver in the world but if you're going even at 30mph and a kid runs out into the road, there is absolutely nothing you can do but be in a position ready to minimise the damage you'll do on impact. That's just the point... speed limits aren't put into place because the government think you'll lose control at 40 in a residential area, it's because of the millions of people you'll pass in a car in your driving lifetime, how many of them do people really think look correctly before crossing the road...

I know that statement is a bit off topic but driving while on a mobile also decreases your state of awareness so the same point applies.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Break really hard.

A cat came into the road and you took action, he can then be reported for driving without due care and attention as he smashes into your rear.

Two problems:
1) Potential injuries
2) They're uninsured.

However, do it with police nearby and you can't lose

 

[Calo]

Break really hard.

A cat came into the road and you took action, he can then be reported for driving without due care and attention as he smashes into your rear.

Two problems:
1) Potential injuries
2) They're uninsured.

However, do it with police nearby and you can't lose

Err dunno but here in belgium, if you break full stop for a cat and you cause an accident its your fault, its allowed to break hard for people and dogs (and horses because you just run into a wall then) but not for cats.

 

[kirennia]

Err dunno but here in belgium, if you break full stop for a cat and you cause an accident its your fault, its allowed to break hard for people and dogs (and horses because you just run into a wall then) but not for cats.

The theory in england is that you should never be close enough that in the event of the driver in front slamming on his brakes, you hit him. As a result, if anyone goes into the back of you it's immediately their fault... unless of course you don't have insurance or are drunk etc etc.

 

[Tom]

A better question would be - Do I want women driving full stop?

Well, I do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12CXvE6fkb8&feature=PlayList&p=AC58ED6A68A861E9&playnext=1&index=31