Wilbur Hubbard

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...nes/article.do

"Motorists who use a hand-held mobile phone or fiddle with a
satellite-navigation system while driving could be jailed for up to two
years."

What kind of country are you blokes stuck in over there? The
authorities will start with taking away your rights in your autos then,
next thing you know they'll take away your boating rights. It all
started when you willingly turned over your firearms. It'll only get
worse until and unless you arm yourselves again.

Wilbur Hubbard

Sandy Morton

In article <imtEi.56692$1G1.44687@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, Dennis
Pogson <dennis_nospampogson@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Since we elected these twats to the EU Parliament there is little
> we can do about the situation. It's called democracy.

Dennis - they are not twats they are twunts!

Martin

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:00:02 +0100, Sandy Morton <sandy@millport.net> wrote:

>In article <imtEi.56692$1G1.44687@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, Dennis
>Pogson <dennis_nospampogson@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Since we elected these twats to the EU Parliament there is little
>> we can do about the situation. It's called democracy.
>
>Dennis - they are not twats they are twunts!

UKIP MEPs are dishonest Cwats.
--

Martin

TonyB

> "Motorists who use a hand-held mobile phone or fiddle with a
> satellite-navigation system while driving could be jailed for up to two
> years."
>
Quite right too. 10 people a day are killed on our roads and many more
injured.
A hands free kit is cheap and works well. If you can afford a car and a
phone
( and the fuel!) you can afford a blue tooth.

Americans seem to think that it's OK to kill other people in pursuit of
their so called values of "freedom".

The innocent family coming the other way seem to have no rights to expect
other drivers to take reasonable care and not
make phone calls while driving.

Having worked in hospitals for over thirty years I can tell you that it's
not pleasant watching a mother crying
over her dead child because some twat wants to send a text.

TonyB

Steve Firth

Wilbur Hubbard <wilburhubbard@thefarm.invallid> wrote:

> What kind of country are you blokes stuck in over there?

One that has one third of the US motoring fatality level. We like to
stay alive, it's the best form of human rights.

You don't want to even think about comparing at our firearms death rate,
it would embarass even you, Craptain.

Dennis Pogson

Steve Firth wrote:
> Wilbur Hubbard <wilburhubbard@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
>
>> What kind of country are you blokes stuck in over there?
>
> One that has one third of the US motoring fatality level. We like to
> stay alive, it's the best form of human rights.
>
> You don't want to even think about comparing at our firearms death
> rate, it would embarass even you, Craptain.

The problem is the innocent mobile phone user who makes hardly any calls,
but feels he needs to answer one single incoming call, if only to inform the
caller that he will call him back at a more suitable time, is just as
likely to get caught as some of these twits who live on their mobile phones
24/7. I could certainly equip my phone with Bluetooth or whatever so that I
could answer the 2 calls a year I might receive whilst driving.

It certainly keeps the electronics manufacturers busy, so they make more
profits, so the Government can tax them
more...........................................

Dennis.

Steve Firth

Dennis Pogson <dennis_nospampogson@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
> > Wilbur Hubbard <wilburhubbard@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
> >
> >> What kind of country are you blokes stuck in over there?
> >
> > One that has one third of the US motoring fatality level. We like to
> > stay alive, it's the best form of human rights.
> >
> > You don't want to even think about comparing at our firearms death
> > rate, it would embarass even you, Craptain.
>
> The problem is the innocent mobile phone user

In this context, there is no such thing as "the innocent mobile phone
user".

> who makes hardly any calls,
> but feels he needs to answer one single incoming call, if only to inform the
> caller that he will call him back at a more suitable time,

Oh look, mobile phone, off button. It's that easy.

> is just as likely to get caught as some of these twits who live on their
> mobile phones 24/7.

No that's untrue. A habitual phone user is much more likely to be
caught. But I'm happy to see any fool with a phone clamped to his ear
fined, no matter what he says about his usage.

> I could certainly equip my phone with Bluetooth or whatever so that I
> could answer the 2 calls a year I might receive whilst driving.

My phone came with a handsfree kit in the box, FoC. If you need/want to
receive calls while driving, you could do so without additional cost.

> It certainly keeps the electronics manufacturers busy, so they make more
> profits, so the Government can tax them
> more...........................................

Ah yes, lines of dots, that always improves a poor point.

Graham Frankland

"Dennis Pogson" <dennis_nospampogson@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4RtEi.56883$1G1.29795@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> A friend of mine has just set off for the Med.(Cap d'Agde) from Scotland
> in
> his 65-foot sailboat.
> he had the choice of filling his tanks in Ardrossan (£4500), Cork (Est
> £3500), or Lisbon (Est £2500). Needless to say he is praying for wind,
> much
> of it! If he makes Lisbon under sail, the savings will pay for the
> airfares
> of his crew on the next leg of the voyage to Gib.
> (I might even travel first class!). These ports are all in EU countries,
> remember?
>

Not sure how he calculated prices?

Marina diesel in the Portugal at the moment is 1.10 euros per litre (roughly
77p) and in SW Spain 1.01 euros (70p) per litre. Unless Red has risen
drastically in price since we left the UK, diesel for pleasure boats is much
dearer over here.

Graham.

TonyB

> The problem is the innocent mobile phone user who makes hardly any calls,
> but feels he needs to answer one single incoming call, if only to inform
> the
> caller that he will call him back at a more suitable time, is just as
> likely to get caught as some of these twits who live on their mobile
> phones
> 24/7. I could certainly equip my phone with Bluetooth or whatever so that
> I
> could answer the 2 calls a year I might receive whilst driving.
>
> It certainly keeps the electronics manufacturers busy, so they make more
> profits, so the Government can tax them
> more...........................................


I am surprised at that comment Dennis. It's akin to saying it's OK to do
90mph
down the High Street or for me to break into your house because I don't
do it often.

A kit costs about £25 and if an impoverished NHS worker can afford one
I should think most people can.

TonyB

Ronald Raygun

Steve Firth wrote:

> My phone came with a handsfree kit in the box, FoC. If you need/want to
> receive calls while driving, you could do so without additional cost.

It gets silly if you attach the HFK to the phone, not to mention
your ears, each time you get behind the wheel, hundreds of times
a year, just on the off chance that you might get caught on the
two occasions per year on which there is an incoming call while
driving.

It's also the case (isn't it?) that only *using* a non-HF phone
(i.e. holding it to your ear) is illegal, but fiddling with stuff
(tuning the radio, CD player, lighting up, eating a sandwich)
isn't. So it would be lawful to fiddle around and connect up the
HFK while driving, as soon as the phone has started to ring, and
*then* to carry on with the conversation in hands-free mode, even
though it's clearly much more dangerous to do that than just to
pick up the phone, press one button to answer it, and hold it to
your ear.

Surely in most situations the real danger comes when people actually
try to *make* a call, i.e. dialling a number, which is fiddly and
needs you to take your eye off the road. It's probably about time
that using GPS navigators while driving be banned too.

Ronald Raygun

Graham Frankland wrote:

> "Dennis Pogson" <dennis_nospampogson@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:4RtEi.56883$1G1.29795@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>> A friend of mine has just set off for the Med.(Cap d'Agde) from Scotland
>> in his 65-foot sailboat.
>> he had the choice of filling his tanks in Ardrossan (£4500), Cork (Est
>> £3500), or Lisbon (Est £2500). Needless to say he is praying for wind,
>> much
>> of it! If he makes Lisbon under sail, the savings will pay for the
>> airfares
>> of his crew on the next leg of the voyage to Gib.
>> (I might even travel first class!). These ports are all in EU countries,
>> remember?
>
> Not sure how he calculated prices?
>
> Marina diesel in the Portugal at the moment is 1.10 euros per litre
> (roughly
> 77p) and in SW Spain 1.01 euros (70p) per litre. Unless Red has risen
> drastically in price since we left the UK, diesel for pleasure boats is
> much dearer over here.

Last month red diesel was available at Gairloch pier (Flowerdale) for
40p a litre, but at Oban Marina it was, I forget exactly, I think
between 60p and 70p.

Martin

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:23:55 GMT, Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:

>Graham Frankland wrote:
>
>> "Dennis Pogson" <dennis_nospampogson@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:4RtEi.56883$1G1.29795@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>> A friend of mine has just set off for the Med.(Cap d'Agde) from Scotland
>>> in his 65-foot sailboat.
>>> he had the choice of filling his tanks in Ardrossan (£4500), Cork (Est
>>> £3500), or Lisbon (Est £2500). Needless to say he is praying for wind,
>>> much
>>> of it! If he makes Lisbon under sail, the savings will pay for the
>>> airfares
>>> of his crew on the next leg of the voyage to Gib.
>>> (I might even travel first class!). These ports are all in EU countries,
>>> remember?
>>
>> Not sure how he calculated prices?
>>
>> Marina diesel in the Portugal at the moment is 1.10 euros per litre
>> (roughly
>> 77p) and in SW Spain 1.01 euros (70p) per litre. Unless Red has risen
>> drastically in price since we left the UK, diesel for pleasure boats is
>> much dearer over here.
>
>Last month red diesel was available at Gairloch pier (Flowerdale) for
>40p a litre, but at Oban Marina it was, I forget exactly, I think
>between 60p and 70p.

Looks like Dennis's friend should turn back before it's too late. A bit like the
Peterhead trawler shown in TV this week. They appeared to be carrying illegal
sized nets and had to go back to harbour whilst they had a BBC camera team on
board.
--

Martin

Pd

Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

> TonyB wrote:
>
> > I am surprised at that comment Dennis. It's akin to saying it's OK to do
> > 90mph
> > down the High Street or for me to break into your house because I don't
> > do it often.
>
> No it isn't. It's just saying that a blanket ban is too draconian
> when the bulk of the perceived risk to the public is from folk who
> are never off the phone, not those who use it once in a green moon.

If the risk to the public is tiny because the occasional user is so
rarely on the phone, then the risk to the occasional user of being
caught and sentenced to a couple of years inside is also tiny, because
they're so rarely on the phone.

If the occasional user causes an accident because they were on the
phone, you could say 'oh, that was terribly bad luck, chance in a
million'. If they get caught and punished, you could say 'oh, that was
terribly bad luck, chance in a million'.

So it all evens out nicely, doesn't it.

--
Pd

Dennis Pogson

"Pd" <pd.news@dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote in message
news:1i44sq0.ox6smg1syt88lN%pd.news@dsl.pipex.inva lid...
> Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>> TonyB wrote:
>>
>> > I am surprised at that comment Dennis. It's akin to saying it's OK to
>> > do
>> > 90mph
>> > down the High Street or for me to break into your house because I don't
>> > do it often.
>>
>> No it isn't. It's just saying that a blanket ban is too draconian
>> when the bulk of the perceived risk to the public is from folk who
>> are never off the phone, not those who use it once in a green moon.
>
> If the risk to the public is tiny because the occasional user is so
> rarely on the phone, then the risk to the occasional user of being
> caught and sentenced to a couple of years inside is also tiny, because
> they're so rarely on the phone.
>
> If the occasional user causes an accident because they were on the
> phone, you could say 'oh, that was terribly bad luck, chance in a
> million'. If they get caught and punished, you could say 'oh, that was
> terribly bad luck, chance in a million'.
>
> So it all evens out nicely, doesn't it.
>
> --
> Pd
I must confess I did once set up my GPS (with maps) in the car, but found it
so distracting I did only one journey whilst using it. It is FAR more
distracting and dangerous than a mobile phone IMHO.

Dennis

Martin

On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:15:04 GMT, "Dennis Pogson" <dennis_pogson@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>
>"Pd" <pd.news@dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1i44sq0.ox6smg1syt88lN%pd.news@dsl.pipex.inv alid...
>> Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>>> TonyB wrote:
>>>
>>> > I am surprised at that comment Dennis. It's akin to saying it's OK to
>>> > do
>>> > 90mph
>>> > down the High Street or for me to break into your house because I don't
>>> > do it often.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. It's just saying that a blanket ban is too draconian
>>> when the bulk of the perceived risk to the public is from folk who
>>> are never off the phone, not those who use it once in a green moon.
>>
>> If the risk to the public is tiny because the occasional user is so
>> rarely on the phone, then the risk to the occasional user of being
>> caught and sentenced to a couple of years inside is also tiny, because
>> they're so rarely on the phone.
>>
>> If the occasional user causes an accident because they were on the
>> phone, you could say 'oh, that was terribly bad luck, chance in a
>> million'. If they get caught and punished, you could say 'oh, that was
>> terribly bad luck, chance in a million'.
>>
>> So it all evens out nicely, doesn't it.
>>
>> --
>> Pd
>I must confess I did once set up my GPS (with maps) in the car, but found it
>so distracting I did only one journey whilst using it. It is FAR more
>distracting and dangerous than a mobile phone IMHO.

How about people with DVD players mounted in the dash board?
--

Martin

terry

On Sep 7, 11:11 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard" <wilburhubb...@thefarm.invallid>
wrote:
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ails/Drivers+r...
>
> "Motorists who use a hand-held mobile phone or fiddle with a
> satellite-navigation system while driving could be jailed for up to two
> years."
>
> What kind of country are you blokes stuck in over there? The
> authorities will start with taking away your rights in your autos then,
> next thing you know they'll take away your boating rights. It all
> started when you willingly turned over your firearms. It'll only get
> worse until and unless you arm yourselves again.
>
> Wilbur Hubbard

Ah yes Wilbur! But when too many people get shot (sometimes by
accident or otherwise) or there are too many auto accidents in a very
tightly packed society, any sensible civilization does something about
it. Gun related deaths, for example, in the USA are way too high for
so-called modern society! If the British (and many parts of Canada too
btw) have found that inattention due to cell phones is a problem they
will hopefully do sensible things to reduce or get rid of the problem.

All these nuts who rant about 'freedom' to carry a gun, not use seat
belts, not wear safety helmets/gear on a construction site are, maybe
at 'liberty' to kill, maim or injure themselves. But they should not
be allowed to hurt others with their irresponsible behaviour.

Incidentally the cost to any society of a drunk driver, fumbling to
use a cell phone, not wearing their safety belt, perhaps speeding, not
obeying rules of the road, car in poor condition etc. can be millions
of dollars in addition to the human pain, suffering and death to
innocents that can be caused.

That attitude is why in many third world countries where there is less
concern for human life; where there is little concept of other peoples
rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' there are such
high death rates and unhappiness.

In North American society we are supposed to care about our fellow
citizens. Are we not? Also the concept of "From the unity of many
comes strength etc.".

However we are also NOT supposed to 'Impose' our rules of society or
tell other how to run ' their societies' either! Help them yes; (As
the USA did with the Marshal plan after winning WWII) but 'tell' them,
no.

Only extreme organisations such as Al Qaeda try to force their
opinions on others; eh?

Wilbur Hubbard

"TonyB" <hatt.j.bennett@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:VaOdnSG2tc9HGH_bnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "Motorists who use a hand-held mobile phone or fiddle with a
>> satellite-navigation system while driving could be jailed for up to
>> two years."
>>
> Quite right too. 10 people a day are killed on our roads and many more
> injured.
> A hands free kit is cheap and works well. If you can afford a car and
> a phone
> ( and the fuel!) you can afford a blue tooth.


Tell me what's the difference between fiddling with a GPS or fiddling
with your car radio? If you cede to the authorities the right to tell
you you can or cannot use one gadget then you cede them the right to
tell you you can't use any gadget. So, are your autos going to have to
be built with NO distractions? No radios, no cigarette lighters, no ash
trays, no glove compartments (certainly putting on gloves is
dangerous??) Nope, you will not be allowed any distractions because you
could hurt or kill yourself or somebody else. Where does it end once you
let it start?

I think we are all smart enough to realize it's not the one hand on the
wheel that's the problem. Rather, it's the half a brain on the job of
driving that's the cause of chaos. A hands-free cell phone does NOTHING
to keep one's mind on the job of driving and a wandering mind is the
cause of the accidents not because you're steering with one hand.

>
> Americans seem to think that it's OK to kill other people in pursuit
> of their so called values of "freedom".
>
> The innocent family coming the other way seem to have no rights to
> expect other drivers to take reasonable care and not
> make phone calls while driving.

I agree, but the big daddy government will not be able to fulfill these
expectations. Only a courteous and informed public will be able to do
that. Again, hands-free is no solution. It's the use of the cell phone
while driving that is the problem. Any government not passing
legislation to totally ban the use of cell phones while driving is not
doing anything positive in the long run. Either do it right or BUTT OUT!
That's what the citizenry needs to demand of their government. No more
half measures.

>
> Having worked in hospitals for over thirty years I can tell you that
> it's not pleasant watching a mother crying
> over her dead child because some twat wants to send a text.

Agreed! Outlaw cell phones and GPS systems in automobiles. They are
unnecessary and dangerous distractions. Innocent people die because
self-absorbed motorists think their right to blabbermouth while driving
is more important to other motorists' right to health and life. Anybody
who kills anybody while driving and using a cell phone should spend the
rest of their life in jail. Let's get serious.

Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur Hubbard

"terry" <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1189277923.323833.113020@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Sep 7, 11:11 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard" <wilburhubb...@thefarm.invallid>
> wrote:
>> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ails/Drivers+r...
>>
>> "Motorists who use a hand-held mobile phone or fiddle with a
>> satellite-navigation system while driving could be jailed for up to
>> two
>> years."
>>
>> What kind of country are you blokes stuck in over there? The
>> authorities will start with taking away your rights in your autos
>> then,
>> next thing you know they'll take away your boating rights. It all
>> started when you willingly turned over your firearms. It'll only get
>> worse until and unless you arm yourselves again.
>>
>> Wilbur Hubbard
>
> Ah yes Wilbur! But when too many people get shot (sometimes by
> accident or otherwise) or there are too many auto accidents in a very
> tightly packed society, any sensible civilization does something about
> it. Gun related deaths, for example, in the USA are way too high for
> so-called modern society! If the British (and many parts of Canada too
> btw) have found that inattention due to cell phones is a problem they
> will hopefully do sensible things to reduce or get rid of the problem.
>
> All these nuts who rant about 'freedom' to carry a gun, not use seat
> belts, not wear safety helmets/gear on a construction site are, maybe
> at 'liberty' to kill, maim or injure themselves. But they should not
> be allowed to hurt others with their irresponsible behaviour.
>
> Incidentally the cost to any society of a drunk driver, fumbling to
> use a cell phone, not wearing their safety belt, perhaps speeding, not
> obeying rules of the road, car in poor condition etc. can be millions
> of dollars in addition to the human pain, suffering and death to
> innocents that can be caused.
>
> That attitude is why in many third world countries where there is less
> concern for human life; where there is little concept of other peoples
> rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' there are such
> high death rates and unhappiness.
>
> In North American society we are supposed to care about our fellow
> citizens. Are we not? Also the concept of "From the unity of many
> comes strength etc.".
>
> However we are also NOT supposed to 'Impose' our rules of society or
> tell other how to run ' their societies' either! Help them yes; (As
> the USA did with the Marshal plan after winning WWII) but 'tell' them,
> no.
>
> Only extreme organisations such as Al Qaeda try to force their
> opinions on others; eh?
>

There is only one thing that should be forced on people and that's
knocking it into their thick skulls that government isn't the answer.
It's all about individual responsibility. Government takes away
individual responsibility.

Every sane citizen who drives a car should realize it's HIS
responsibility to do so safely and to further realize if he fails to do
it safely and harms another person then he should pay the price for his
failing to drive safely. Every sane citizen should turn off his cell
phone when he gets into his car. No sane person needs a GPS receiver in
his car. No sane person needs to be farding in her car. No sane person
needs to be doing anything but concentrating on the job at hand which is
driving.

Letting government get away with a band-aid approach of passing this law
and that law and imposing large fines only grows government and does
NOTHING to solve the problem of distracted drivers. It can't. Only the
drivers can decide to be distracted or not. No large fine will scare
them. No prison sentence will dissuade them. Only accepting personal
responsibility will. The more you allow government to take away your
personal rights and your personal responsibility the worse you allow the
situation to become and the more dangerous your own life becomes.

What if every person was mandated by law to carry a handgun in their
car. What if they survived an accident caused by a cell phone user they
were then mandated to shoot to kill the driver who caused the accident.
That would put an end to drivers using cell phones. Guaranteed. I know,
it's not workable but it's no less workable than letting the government
impose stupid laws and fines that won't work either.

Wilbur Hubbard

terry

On Sep 8, 10:26 am, "Dennis Pogson" <dennis_nospampog...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote:
> > Wilbur Hubbard <wilburhubb...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
>
> >> What kind of country are you blokes stuck in over there?
>
> > One that has one third of the US motoring fatality level. We like to
> > stay alive, it's the best form of human rights.
>
> > You don't want to even think about comparing at our firearms death
> > rate, it would embarass even you, Craptain.
>
> The problem is the innocent mobile phone user who makes hardly any calls,
> but feels he needs to answer one single incoming call, if only to inform the
> caller that he will call him back at a more suitable time, is just as
> likely to get caught as some of these twits who live on their mobile phones
> 24/7. I could certainly equip my phone with Bluetooth or whatever so that I
> could answer the 2 calls a year I might receive whilst driving.
>
> It certainly keeps the electronics manufacturers busy, so they make more
> profits, so the Government can tax them
> more...........................................
>
> Dennis.

We carry a basic cell/mobile phone. It can be used on our boat where
it is most likely to be on all the time and can be grabbed by the
person nearest.
While I am driving the same phone is plugged in to the 12 volt vehicle
for charging but switched off. It's there mainly for emergencies.
Same way; if the traffic is heavy and think we hear an emergency
vehicle siren through the slightly open window, even in winter, turn
off the radio, which you can do without taking eyes off the road, if
it happens to be on.
When alone first job is driving no matter weather or road traffic
conditions!
Then when the vehicle is parked or at rest at side of the road flick
on the mobile/cell phone and see if any missed calls. If they look
important return them. If another person is in the car they can do the
checking while car is moving leaving the driver to concentrate. And
maybe advise "That's a call from Bill, says to get back to him before
midday. Best to call him when we stop at xyz? OK?". The passenger can
see prevailing road/traffic conditions facing the driver and can
communicate and suggest accordingly.
We have and have used a headset which is allowed under our legislation
(An eastern province of Canada where hand use while driving is banned
but poorly enforced), but am not personally sure that guarantees any
better attention.
An animated telephone conversation of which I have seen a few,
complete with gestures body language cues, head shaking etc, while
driving in traffic, wandering in a driving lane, varying speed etc.
is in my opinion just as liable to distract any driver. Including
myself!
Also in my opinion using an instantaneous two way conversation
'telephone' is not the same as using a mobile radio with its protocols
of "Car 54 where are you?", "Over to you" or "Any vehicle in the
Edgeware Road please respond." Those procedaures leaving a pause while
the driving party negotiates traffic and/or decides what's more
important? Answering the damn radio (phone) or driving!
Ever notice too how a family member knowing ones habits will often let
the phone ring for much longer than a random caller? Me (panting
slightly) "Hello, yes. I was downstairs at the washing machine, thanks
for letting it ring; 10 times (although even that is only 60
seconds!). OK call me back in about an hour when I get the washing
done. See-ya later".
If one tries to answer every call one gets while performing another
important task (that of driving) it is a disservice to both parties.
Especially by males who are, it is said, much worse at multi-tasking
than the ladies!
Ringing off.

TonyB

>>I must confess I did once set up my GPS (with maps) in the car, but found
>>it
>>so distracting I did only one journey whilst using it. It is FAR more
>>distracting and dangerous than a mobile phone IMHO.
>
> How about people with DVD players mounted in the dash board?


I don't disagree with those comments. I've also got a feeling, but
no evidence to support it, that the use of display screens in the driver's
field of view are
illegal in the UK already. I do have a GPS myself and find on balance that
it's a lot safer to listen to the voice
rather than look at the screen, and certainly safer than trying to find a
way through a strange town using maps and roadsigns.

TonyB

NotMyRealName

In message <k4q5e3512350mug6k6vaddbalkprhcob5d@4ax.com>, Martin
<me@address.invalid> writes
>On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:15:04 GMT, "Dennis Pogson" <dennis_pogson@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pd" <pd.news@dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:1i44sq0.ox6smg1syt88lN%pd.news@dsl.pipex.in valid...
>>> Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>>
>>>> TonyB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I am surprised at that comment Dennis. It's akin to saying it's OK to
>>>> > do
>>>> > 90mph
>>>> > down the High Street or for me to break into your house because I don't
>>>> > do it often.
>>>>
>>>> No it isn't. It's just saying that a blanket ban is too draconian
>>>> when the bulk of the perceived risk to the public is from folk who
>>>> are never off the phone, not those who use it once in a green moon.
>>>
>>> If the risk to the public is tiny because the occasional user is so
>>> rarely on the phone, then the risk to the occasional user of being
>>> caught and sentenced to a couple of years inside is also tiny, because
>>> they're so rarely on the phone.
>>>
>>> If the occasional user causes an accident because they were on the
>>> phone, you could say 'oh, that was terribly bad luck, chance in a
>>> million'. If they get caught and punished, you could say 'oh, that was
>>> terribly bad luck, chance in a million'.
>>>
>>> So it all evens out nicely, doesn't it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pd
>>I must confess I did once set up my GPS (with maps) in the car, but found it
>>so distracting I did only one journey whilst using it. It is FAR more
>>distracting and dangerous than a mobile phone IMHO.
>
>How about people with DVD players mounted in the dash board?

And smokers (who also flick ash and dog-ends out the window). Years ago,
when I smoked, I found the most distracting thing was dropping a lighted
cigarette on my lap!

--
Spike

Martin

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 20:50:45 +0100, "TonyB" <hatt.j.bennett@tesco.net> wrote:

>>>I must confess I did once set up my GPS (with maps) in the car, but found
>>>it
>>>so distracting I did only one journey whilst using it. It is FAR more
>>>distracting and dangerous than a mobile phone IMHO.
>>
>> How about people with DVD players mounted in the dash board?
>
>
>I don't disagree with those comments. I've also got a feeling, but
>no evidence to support it, that the use of display screens in the driver's
>field of view are
>illegal in the UK already.

They are supposed to only work when the handbrake is on. People modify the
installation so that it will work all the time.

> I do have a GPS myself and find on balance that
>it's a lot safer to listen to the voice
>rather than look at the screen, and certainly safer than trying to find a
>way through a strange town using maps and roadsigns.
>
>TonyB
--

Martin

Martin

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 21:25:07 +0100, NotMyRealName <spike@notmegov.com.yuk> wrote:

>In message <k4q5e3512350mug6k6vaddbalkprhcob5d@4ax.com>, Martin
><me@address.invalid> writes
>>On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:15:04 GMT, "Dennis Pogson" <dennis_pogson@ntlworld.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Pd" <pd.news@dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:1i44sq0.ox6smg1syt88lN%pd.news@dsl.pipex.i nvalid...
>>>> Ronald Raygun <no.spam@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> TonyB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > I am surprised at that comment Dennis. It's akin to saying it's OK to
>>>>> > do
>>>>> > 90mph
>>>>> > down the High Street or for me to break into your house because I don't
>>>>> > do it often.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't. It's just saying that a blanket ban is too draconian
>>>>> when the bulk of the perceived risk to the public is from folk who
>>>>> are never off the phone, not those who use it once in a green moon.
>>>>
>>>> If the risk to the public is tiny because the occasional user is so
>>>> rarely on the phone, then the risk to the occasional user of being
>>>> caught and sentenced to a couple of years inside is also tiny, because
>>>> they're so rarely on the phone.
>>>>
>>>> If the occasional user causes an accident because they were on the
>>>> phone, you could say 'oh, that was terribly bad luck, chance in a
>>>> million'. If they get caught and punished, you could say 'oh, that was
>>>> terribly bad luck, chance in a million'.
>>>>
>>>> So it all evens out nicely, doesn't it.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Pd
>>>I must confess I did once set up my GPS (with maps) in the car, but found it
>>>so distracting I did only one journey whilst using it. It is FAR more
>>>distracting and dangerous than a mobile phone IMHO.
>>
>>How about people with DVD players mounted in the dash board?
>
>And smokers (who also flick ash and dog-ends out the window). Years ago,
>when I smoked, I found the most distracting thing was dropping a lighted
>cigarette on my lap!

Not as bad of women who drop lighted cigarettes into their bras and worse.
--

Martin

chrisR

"terry" <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1189280679.537348.152390@r29g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> On Sep 8, 10:26 am, "Dennis Pogson" <dennis_nospampog...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> > Steve Firth wrote:
> > > Wilbur Hubbard <wilburhubb...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
> >
> > >> What kind of country are you blokes stuck in over there?
> >
> > > One that has one third of the US motoring fatality level. We like to
> > > stay alive, it's the best form of human rights.
> >
> > > You don't want to even think about comparing at our firearms death
> > > rate, it would embarass even you, Craptain.
> >
> > The problem is the innocent mobile phone user who makes hardly any
calls,
> > but feels he needs to answer one single incoming call, if only to inform
the
> > caller that he will call him back at a more suitable time, is just as
> > likely to get caught as some of these twits who live on their mobile
phones
> > 24/7. I could certainly equip my phone with Bluetooth or whatever so
that I
> > could answer the 2 calls a year I might receive whilst driving.
> >
> > It certainly keeps the electronics manufacturers busy, so they make more
> > profits, so the Government can tax them
> > more...........................................
> >
> > Dennis.
>
> We carry a basic cell/mobile phone. It can be used on our boat where
> it is most likely to be on all the time and can be grabbed by the
> person nearest.
> While I am driving the same phone is plugged in to the 12 volt vehicle
> for charging but switched off. It's there mainly for emergencies.
> Same way; if the traffic is heavy and think we hear an emergency
> vehicle siren through the slightly open window, even in winter, turn
> off the radio, which you can do without taking eyes off the road, if
> it happens to be on.
> When alone first job is driving no matter weather or road traffic
> conditions!
> Then when the vehicle is parked or at rest at side of the road flick
> on the mobile/cell phone and see if any missed calls. If they look
> important return them. If another person is in the car they can do the
> checking while car is moving leaving the driver to concentrate. And
> maybe advise "That's a call from Bill, says to get back to him before
> midday. Best to call him when we stop at xyz? OK?". The passenger can
> see prevailing road/traffic conditions facing the driver and can
> communicate and suggest accordingly.
> We have and have used a headset which is allowed under our legislation
> (An eastern province of Canada where hand use while driving is banned
> but poorly enforced), but am not personally sure that guarantees any
> better attention.
> An animated telephone conversation of which I have seen a few,
> complete with gestures body language cues, head shaking etc, while
> driving in traffic, wandering in a driving lane, varying speed etc.
> is in my opinion just as liable to distract any driver. Including
> myself!
> Also in my opinion using an instantaneous two way conversation
> 'telephone' is not the same as using a mobile radio with its protocols
> of "Car 54 where are you?", "Over to you" or "Any vehicle in the
> Edgeware Road please respond." Those procedaures leaving a pause while
> the driving party negotiates traffic and/or decides what's more
> important? Answering the damn radio (phone) or driving!
> Ever notice too how a family member knowing ones habits will often let
> the phone ring for much longer than a random caller? Me (panting
> slightly) "Hello, yes. I was downstairs at the washing machine, thanks
> for letting it ring; 10 times (although even that is only 60
> seconds!). OK call me back in about an hour when I get the washing
> done. See-ya later".
> If one tries to answer every call one gets while performing another
> important task (that of driving) it is a disservice to both parties.
> Especially by males who are, it is said, much worse at multi-tasking
> than the ladies!
> Ringing off.
>

I found GPS in a car very useful. Before I set out I set the destination
check the route is ok then don't have to worry about map reading while I'm
driving just listen to the directions if I go wrong it is instantly
corrected. I think it is a safety aid.
Chris

Andy Champ

Dennis Pogson wrote:

> <snip It's called democracy.
>
>

That statement is precisley right. It's *called* democracy - but it
isn't. It's an elective oligarchy, with democratic elections.

We do not vote on the issues (which is what a democracy is), only on
which people should deal with the issues.

Andy
--
How do you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving...

Andy Champ

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
>
> I think we are all smart enough to realize it's not the one hand on the
> wheel that's the problem. Rather, it's the half a brain on the job of
> driving that's the cause of chaos. A hands-free cell phone does NOTHING
> to keep one's mind on the job of driving and a wandering mind is the
> cause of the accidents not because you're steering with one hand.
>
Wilbur, you're slipping. That's a sensible comment.

Andy

Martin

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 14:14:08 +0100, Andy Champ <no.way@nospam.com> wrote:

>Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
>>
>> I think we are all smart enough to realize it's not the one hand on the
>> wheel that's the problem. Rather, it's the half a brain on the job of
>> driving that's the cause of chaos. A hands-free cell phone does NOTHING
>> to keep one's mind on the job of driving and a wandering mind is the
>> cause of the accidents not because you're steering with one hand.
>>
>Wilbur, you're slipping. That's a sensible comment.

You may think so.
--

Martin

Wilbur Hubbard

"chrisR" <chris@yachtsmen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46e35ed1$1@nntp.onyx.net...
>
> "terry" <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1189280679.537348.152390@r29g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>> On Sep 8, 10:26 am, "Dennis Pogson"
>> <dennis_nospampog...@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Steve Firth wrote:
>> > > Wilbur Hubbard <wilburhubb...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> What kind of country are you blokes stuck in over there?
>> >
>> > > One that has one third of the US motoring fatality level. We like
>> > > to
>> > > stay alive, it's the best form of human rights.
>> >
>> > > You don't want to even think about comparing at our firearms
>> > > death
>> > > rate, it would embarass even you, Craptain.
>> >
>> > The problem is the innocent mobile phone user who makes hardly any
> calls,
>> > but feels he needs to answer one single incoming call, if only to
>> > inform
> the
>> > caller that he will call him back at a more suitable time, is just
>> > as
>> > likely to get caught as some of these twits who live on their
>> > mobile
> phones
>> > 24/7. I could certainly equip my phone with Bluetooth or whatever
>> > so
> that I
>> > could answer the 2 calls a year I might receive whilst driving.
>> >
>> > It certainly keeps the electronics manufacturers busy, so they make
>> > more
>> > profits, so the Government can tax them
>> > more...........................................
>> >
>> > Dennis.
>>
>> We carry a basic cell/mobile phone. It can be used on our boat where
>> it is most likely to be on all the time and can be grabbed by the
>> person nearest.
>> While I am driving the same phone is plugged in to the 12 volt
>> vehicle
>> for charging but switched off. It's there mainly for emergencies.
>> Same way; if the traffic is heavy and think we hear an emergency
>> vehicle siren through the slightly open window, even in winter, turn
>> off the radio, which you can do without taking eyes off the road, if
>> it happens to be on.
>> When alone first job is driving no matter weather or road traffic
>> conditions!
>> Then when the vehicle is parked or at rest at side of the road flick
>> on the mobile/cell phone and see if any missed calls. If they look
>> important return them. If another person is in the car they can do
>> the
>> checking while car is moving leaving the driver to concentrate. And
>> maybe advise "That's a call from Bill, says to get back to him before
>> midday. Best to call him when we stop at xyz? OK?". The passenger can
>> see prevailing road/traffic conditions facing the driver and can
>> communicate and suggest accordingly.
>> We have and have used a headset which is allowed under our
>> legislation
>> (An eastern province of Canada where hand use while driving is banned
>> but poorly enforced), but am not personally sure that guarantees any
>> better attention.
>> An animated telephone conversation of which I have seen a few,
>> complete with gestures body language cues, head shaking etc, while
>> driving in traffic, wandering in a driving lane, varying speed etc.
>> is in my opinion just as liable to distract any driver. Including
>> myself!
>> Also in my opinion using an instantaneous two way conversation
>> 'telephone' is not the same as using a mobile radio with its
>> protocols
>> of "Car 54 where are you?", "Over to you" or "Any vehicle in the
>> Edgeware Road please respond." Those procedaures leaving a pause
>> while
>> the driving party negotiates traffic and/or decides what's more
>> important? Answering the damn radio (phone) or driving!
>> Ever notice too how a family member knowing ones habits will often
>> let
>> the phone ring for much longer than a random caller? Me (panting
>> slightly) "Hello, yes. I was downstairs at the washing machine,
>> thanks
>> for letting it ring; 10 times (although even that is only 60
>> seconds!). OK call me back in about an hour when I get the washing
>> done. See-ya later".
>> If one tries to answer every call one gets while performing another
>> important task (that of driving) it is a disservice to both parties.
>> Especially by males who are, it is said, much worse at multi-tasking
>> than the ladies!
>> Ringing off.
>>
>
> I found GPS in a car very useful. Before I set out I set the
> destination
> check the route is ok then don't have to worry about map reading while
> I'm
> driving just listen to the directions if I go wrong it is instantly
> corrected. I think it is a safety aid.
> Chris


Horse pucky! It's a distraction.

No destination is so complicated than one cannot view a map (or the GPS)
beforehand, memorize the perhaps half-dozen turns that need to be made
and then drive there. If you're so feeble-minded that you need some
gadget that has an IQ of probably 2 telling you how to proceed then just
what conclusion can be made about your IQ? Answer: IQ = <2.

And, you're totally neglecting to realize that cell phones and GPS go
hand in hand. When you can't figure out your GPS then you resort to
dialing up the phone and driving along taking directions from somebody
at the place you're going to. They tell you where to turn. They know the
way. Are they that much smarter than you? Why can't you take a few
minutes to study a map so you also know the way? Cell phone or GPS,
either way it's the wrong way to drive.

Just think of the billions of people who arrived at their destinations
safe and sound before the advent of cell phones and GPS. Have you
already forgotten the correct and sensible way to drive. That is to know
where you are and to know where you're going before you get behind the
wheel?

Now run along!

Wilbur Hubbard

Duncan Heenan

"Wilbur Hubbard" <wilburhubbard@thefarm.invallid> wrote in message
news:46e1f68e$0$79257$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com...
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...nes/article.do
>
> "Motorists who use a hand-held mobile phone or fiddle with a
> satellite-navigation system while driving could be jailed for up to two
> years."
>
> What kind of country are you blokes stuck in over there? The authorities
> will start with taking away your rights in your autos then, next thing you
> know they'll take away your boating rights. It all started when you
> willingly turned over your firearms. It'll only get worse until and unless
> you arm yourselves again.
>
> Wilbur Hubbard

There is an argument for the archaic practice of Americans keeping guns
everywhere, legally. It is that many, many more Americans have been killed
by other Americans with legally held weapons than have been killed by
terrorists of all kinds. This argument is favoured by Osama Bin Laden, who I
am sure would fully support Wilma's patriotically homicidal tendencies, as
it is reducing the numbers of Americans on this planet faster than Al Qaida
can.

Andy Champ

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
>
> Horse pucky! It's a distraction.
>
> No destination is so complicated than one cannot view a map (or the GPS)
> beforehand, memorize the perhaps half-dozen turns that need to be made
> and then drive there.

You've never driven in England have you?

I just did a mental count of my 13 mile drive to work; it involves
about 40 junctions, of which 9 are a change of road.

And no, I don't need a GPS for that. Nor for the 60 mile journey to my
parents, nor the 100 to my wife's parents, nor the 150 for my son,
because I know those routes.

I have been known to use one. It's just *easier* in a strange place.

Andy

Steve Firth

Andy Champ <no.way@nospam.com> wrote:

> Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
> >
> > Horse pucky! It's a distraction.
> >
> > No destination is so complicated than one cannot view a map (or the GPS)
> > beforehand, memorize the perhaps half-dozen turns that need to be made
> > and then drive there.
>
> You've never driven in England have you?

And definitely not in Europe, nor I suspect across much of the USA
either. My 1000 mile plus route between homes is fairly easy to memorise
but it crosses four mountain ranges. With satnav it's possible to
optimise the route to take account of the closures of tunnels, passes or
major roadworks. For example two years ago the route through Belgium was
mostly closed as they renewed all of the motorways between France and
Luxembourg. The exact location changed week on week and satnav made
finding the fastest route around the problem areas a piece of cake.

Fast jet pilots don't seem to find satnav a distraction.

Martin

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:29:12 +0100, Andy Champ <no.way@nospam.com> wrote:

>Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
>>
>> Horse pucky! It's a distraction.
>>
>> No destination is so complicated than one cannot view a map (or the GPS)
>> beforehand, memorize the perhaps half-dozen turns that need to be made
>> and then drive there.
>
>You've never driven in England have you?
>
>I just did a mental count of my 13 mile drive to work; it involves
>about 40 junctions, of which 9 are a change of road.
>
>And no, I don't need a GPS for that. Nor for the 60 mile journey to my
>parents, nor the 100 to my wife's parents, nor the 150 for my son,
>because I know those routes.
>
>I have been known to use one. It's just *easier* in a strange place.

So how did you get a round 20 years ago?
--

Martin

Steve Firth

Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:

> So how did you get a round 20 years ago?

What a silly argument. There are lots of things I had to do twenty years
ago that I am happy to pass off onto better technology to do today.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Steve Firth" <usenet-urs@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1i48x3v.d8xzx31prdwfpN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk.. .
> Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> So how did you get a round 20 years ago?
>
> What a silly argument. There are lots of things I had to do twenty
> years
> ago that I am happy to pass off onto better technology to do today.

More horse pucky. Why didn't you answer the question instead of evading
the issue? The point is you simply do not need GPS to find your way to a
destination. The fact that people had no trouble finding their
destinations prior to the advent of GPS pretty well proves it.

So we are left with the fact that GPS navigation for autos is not
necessary but possibly a convenience. Then the question that must be
seriously addressed is when does a convenience that kills innocent
people because of distracted drivers using it become something that
should be outlawed? When is one person's convenience paramount to
another's life and limb?

Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur Hubbard

Andy Champ

Martin wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:29:12 +0100, Andy Champ <no.way@nospam.com> wrote:
>> I have been known to use one. It's just *easier* in a strange place.
>
> So how did you get a round 20 years ago?

A round what?

Oh, you mean around

Like I said, I have been known to use a GPS. I don't *need* one, it's
just *easier*. I used to get my wife to read the map (which she hates -
but not as much as driving while I read the map) or just pull over and
look at it. Or write down directions. Or write to the AA(1) (you
know... paper.. enevelopes...) and get them to send me a route on little
bits of paper held together with paperclips.

Andy


(1) Automobile Association, in case there's any doubt