ChrisE
Well-Known Member
Hear, hear (nm).
.
<hr width=100% size=1>
.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Boating regulation.........A thought?
- Thread starter Col
- Start date
jimi
Well-Known Member
Re: Reply Was To The Repliers
i'm not sure that an additional law was required. IMHO driving without due care and attention would cover it quite nicely. Hobbyhorse of mine is all these new laws and regulations when they are adequately covered by existing laws .. all they need is intelligent application.
<hr width=100% size=1>O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
i'm not sure that an additional law was required. IMHO driving without due care and attention would cover it quite nicely. Hobbyhorse of mine is all these new laws and regulations when they are adequately covered by existing laws .. all they need is intelligent application.
<hr width=100% size=1>O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
Robin
Well-Known Member
Re: Reply Was To The Repliers
Well yes you are right but at least having a separate specifically stated law makes it more apparent, some people out there seem to need it in CAPITAL LETTERS!
Now all we need is for them to be banned from:-
Restaurants (inc motorway cafes/Little Chefs)
Bars
Golf Clubs
Trains & buses
Supermarkets*
etc etc
* Heard one call from hubby by the frozen food to wifey at the checkout - they only have the big packs....'
Or the call a passenger made on the bus from aircraft to terminal 'Hi I'm on the bus to the terminal, can't talk now, I'll have to call you again when I can talk'
And My SWMBO is as bad, spent hours texting jokes back and forth round the ladies whilst we were on hols. I wouldn't mind but the jokes are crap too, at least I got her to turn off the keypad beeps in the end.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Well yes you are right but at least having a separate specifically stated law makes it more apparent, some people out there seem to need it in CAPITAL LETTERS!
Now all we need is for them to be banned from:-
Restaurants (inc motorway cafes/Little Chefs)
Bars
Golf Clubs
Trains & buses
Supermarkets*
etc etc
* Heard one call from hubby by the frozen food to wifey at the checkout - they only have the big packs....'
Or the call a passenger made on the bus from aircraft to terminal 'Hi I'm on the bus to the terminal, can't talk now, I'll have to call you again when I can talk'
And My SWMBO is as bad, spent hours texting jokes back and forth round the ladies whilst we were on hols. I wouldn't mind but the jokes are crap too, at least I got her to turn off the keypad beeps in the end.
<hr width=100% size=1>
DeeGee
Well-Known Member
Re: Reply Was To The Repliers
I think the law has been framed to make it easier for the prosecution of an offence. The onus of proving that you were driving carelessly has gone, just to prove you were on the phone at all. The business about handsfree and engine switched on fall into the same category. Handsfree is recognition of the impossibility of applying the law to drivers of cars fitted with handsfree, plus the encouragement to all to fit the kit. Stopped with engine on, fine distinction when offerering a defence - stopped with engine off, unequivocal. My work colleague was stopped and fined £30 a few months back, I guess he was driving badly or something,which he considered defending - under the new law, he wouldn't even bother to consider.
<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all
I think the law has been framed to make it easier for the prosecution of an offence. The onus of proving that you were driving carelessly has gone, just to prove you were on the phone at all. The business about handsfree and engine switched on fall into the same category. Handsfree is recognition of the impossibility of applying the law to drivers of cars fitted with handsfree, plus the encouragement to all to fit the kit. Stopped with engine on, fine distinction when offerering a defence - stopped with engine off, unequivocal. My work colleague was stopped and fined £30 a few months back, I guess he was driving badly or something,which he considered defending - under the new law, he wouldn't even bother to consider.
<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all
sailbadthesinner
Well-Known Member
Re: enforcement of law
the law has to applied the same across the board
9n some areas police would stop you if you were using a mobile and would prosecute and in otgher sthey would not. it was a lottery.
this is a daft situation the law as it stands is an absolute dogs breakfast that has been drawn up to tackle a problem that is not really there
how many accidents have actually been caused by mobile phones??? it is like dangerous dogs act. knee jerk legislation that is poorly drafted and if it were not for the fine element would not be enforced.
this government has run up the cost of governing by billions and laws like this help noone except those police forces that choose to enforce it as a revenue raiser.
all IMHO ofcourse
<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>if guinness is good for you. i must be very very good</font color=red>
the law has to applied the same across the board
9n some areas police would stop you if you were using a mobile and would prosecute and in otgher sthey would not. it was a lottery.
this is a daft situation the law as it stands is an absolute dogs breakfast that has been drawn up to tackle a problem that is not really there
how many accidents have actually been caused by mobile phones??? it is like dangerous dogs act. knee jerk legislation that is poorly drafted and if it were not for the fine element would not be enforced.
this government has run up the cost of governing by billions and laws like this help noone except those police forces that choose to enforce it as a revenue raiser.
all IMHO ofcourse
<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>if guinness is good for you. i must be very very good</font color=red>
Peppermint
Well-Known Member
Re: Revenue
It's another law that has on the spot fines. It's an earner for the plods.
I spent much of my early career working in the traffic engineering and safety industry. If you don't trust the stats about other HMG brainwaves there's no reason to start trusting them with this. There are things we do that we should be stopped doing. This one will not make much of a dent in road accident frequency.
I do hope that no one gives me that "well one life saved is worth it" line either.
As to my importance well the phone isn't a measure of that, though I am very important.
<hr width=100% size=1>
It's another law that has on the spot fines. It's an earner for the plods.
I spent much of my early career working in the traffic engineering and safety industry. If you don't trust the stats about other HMG brainwaves there's no reason to start trusting them with this. There are things we do that we should be stopped doing. This one will not make much of a dent in road accident frequency.
I do hope that no one gives me that "well one life saved is worth it" line either.
As to my importance well the phone isn't a measure of that, though I am very important.
<hr width=100% size=1>
DeeGee
Well-Known Member
Re: enforcement of law
As the guy on the radio said this am. 'if we believed all the people who can drive just as well on the phone as off, we would find that there is noone left to have an accident". However, there are statistics on accidents happening when on the phone, and they are pretty dismal. I use my phone from time to time, and it defininitely reduces my concentration - I get off it as soon as poss, but now, I think I shall divert as Robin suggests. Even a h/free is an attention diverter.
<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all
As the guy on the radio said this am. 'if we believed all the people who can drive just as well on the phone as off, we would find that there is noone left to have an accident". However, there are statistics on accidents happening when on the phone, and they are pretty dismal. I use my phone from time to time, and it defininitely reduces my concentration - I get off it as soon as poss, but now, I think I shall divert as Robin suggests. Even a h/free is an attention diverter.
<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all
Col
Well-Known Member
Re: Wrong end of the stick!
Yep. Exactly what I meant.
All these people that have been clamouring for regulation of boating will have this sort of confusion and double standards if it ever happens.
Why not keep it simple, either ban them (mobys) completely or not at all. The bit about being able to send texts is sheer madness IMHO.
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/colspics> Cols Picture Album</A>
Yep. Exactly what I meant.
All these people that have been clamouring for regulation of boating will have this sort of confusion and double standards if it ever happens.
Why not keep it simple, either ban them (mobys) completely or not at all. The bit about being able to send texts is sheer madness IMHO.
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/colspics> Cols Picture Album</A>
Robin
Well-Known Member
Tell That to a Victim
When I wrote my original reply I had just listened to the relative of a road accident victim where a mobile phone was involved. I wonder if she would be persuaded by your arguments?
<<I do hope that no one gives me that "well one life saved is worth it" line either.>>
Well I will give you that line, it might be MY life or one of my family's or friends. That phonecall might be important to the caller, but NOT to the victim, if it is that important pull over and make it safely. There should be no argument about this, mobiles HAVE been involved in fatal accidents, it is not a case of maybe.
<hr width=100% size=1>
When I wrote my original reply I had just listened to the relative of a road accident victim where a mobile phone was involved. I wonder if she would be persuaded by your arguments?
<<I do hope that no one gives me that "well one life saved is worth it" line either.>>
Well I will give you that line, it might be MY life or one of my family's or friends. That phonecall might be important to the caller, but NOT to the victim, if it is that important pull over and make it safely. There should be no argument about this, mobiles HAVE been involved in fatal accidents, it is not a case of maybe.
<hr width=100% size=1>
tico
Well-Known Member
Re: Tell That to a Victim
Just as a thought......
Surely we should ban carrying passangers in the car in case they talk to the driver.... might distract him!
Also ban in car radios cd's etc
Ban speedos / engine gauges etc , after all when you look at them , youre not looking at the road.
What next? compulsory rest breaks after 2 hours, with engine cutouts to enforce them, max speed of 5 mph in case we hit something... even wot about a man in front with a red flag, that sounds like a good idea?
Dons Nomex overalls.....
<hr width=100% size=1>Been there, done that, got the oily T shirt
Just as a thought......
Surely we should ban carrying passangers in the car in case they talk to the driver.... might distract him!
Also ban in car radios cd's etc
Ban speedos / engine gauges etc , after all when you look at them , youre not looking at the road.
What next? compulsory rest breaks after 2 hours, with engine cutouts to enforce them, max speed of 5 mph in case we hit something... even wot about a man in front with a red flag, that sounds like a good idea?
Dons Nomex overalls.....
<hr width=100% size=1>Been there, done that, got the oily T shirt
charles_reed
Well-Known Member
Mobiles at sea
Definitely essential - the only way you can raise most mediterranean marinas is over the mobile - they certainly don't listen on 16 and it's the exception that bothers with 09.
Of course they don't have the two M channels as we do in the UK.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Definitely essential - the only way you can raise most mediterranean marinas is over the mobile - they certainly don't listen on 16 and it's the exception that bothers with 09.
Of course they don't have the two M channels as we do in the UK.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Robin
Well-Known Member
Re: Tell That to a Victim
And do you think that argument would get you off a charge of manslaughter?
It is not often I would agree with this government, and I suspect the detail of this may be their usual mishmash, but they are but going the way of many other countries as well.
<hr width=100% size=1>
And do you think that argument would get you off a charge of manslaughter?
It is not often I would agree with this government, and I suspect the detail of this may be their usual mishmash, but they are but going the way of many other countries as well.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Peppermint
Well-Known Member
Re: Facts
HMG have picked an easy marketable target. Everybody was p**sed off with mobile phone users already. It might save a life it might not.
The chances of it saving lives is being spun.
If you were to cut the grass at road junctions.
Calm streets outside schools.
Spend more money on street lighting.
Develop a test and a policy to deal with drug taking drivers.
Put an insurance disk in car windows like with car tax *
You will make a very positive step towards halving road deaths.
So why not do it? Well with the exception of the last one they all cost money and we're not prepared to pay. It appears that many of you are prepared to bend over for this new law, which is both poorly drafted and ineffective, which just makes using your carphone more complicated. If the idea was to save lives why didn't we just ban the use completely?
In 1980 it cost nearly 40k, to the country, for a road fatality. God knows how much it costs now. We did a simple calculation that if a bit of road had repeated fatalities and we could fix it for a reasonable multiple of these 40k's them we fixed it. We didn't look around to see what aspect of the accident could be used to produce revenue. I don't have the figures but I'd like to see how Police cashflow from the motorist has grown in the last 10 years.
* this may seem strange but uninsured cars have more accidents.
Always remember that 100% of people involved in car accidents will have eaten bread in the days before the accident. Should we ban it?
<hr width=100% size=1>
HMG have picked an easy marketable target. Everybody was p**sed off with mobile phone users already. It might save a life it might not.
The chances of it saving lives is being spun.
If you were to cut the grass at road junctions.
Calm streets outside schools.
Spend more money on street lighting.
Develop a test and a policy to deal with drug taking drivers.
Put an insurance disk in car windows like with car tax *
You will make a very positive step towards halving road deaths.
So why not do it? Well with the exception of the last one they all cost money and we're not prepared to pay. It appears that many of you are prepared to bend over for this new law, which is both poorly drafted and ineffective, which just makes using your carphone more complicated. If the idea was to save lives why didn't we just ban the use completely?
In 1980 it cost nearly 40k, to the country, for a road fatality. God knows how much it costs now. We did a simple calculation that if a bit of road had repeated fatalities and we could fix it for a reasonable multiple of these 40k's them we fixed it. We didn't look around to see what aspect of the accident could be used to produce revenue. I don't have the figures but I'd like to see how Police cashflow from the motorist has grown in the last 10 years.
* this may seem strange but uninsured cars have more accidents.
Always remember that 100% of people involved in car accidents will have eaten bread in the days before the accident. Should we ban it?
<hr width=100% size=1>