Texting while driving

[BensGrandad]

ok so we shift more police to foot patrolling car watchers.....then the burglarys shoot up and the muggings shoot up....you cant police everyone all the time!

What are the CPSO s doing?

 

[Deleted member 2719]

The female one if the numbers I see texting are anything to go by....

I would agree it really seems to be women some even doing it with kids in the back.

They may think they can multi-task but this is just a easy way to end your and someone elses life.

 

[Gully]

...but how on earth are you going to convince them that they are doing something wrong and make them change their habit?

...punitive fines, confiscation and crushing of their vehicles...or even worse their mobile phone!

 

[Nemesis]

Its up to him if he chooses to break the law or not, just like its my choice

When you have your inevitable accident I hope it's only a tree you crash into and not some innocent person or persons.

Texting whilst driving is no more distracting than changing a radio station? What a f***ing imbecile you are.

 

[Gully]

This is almost as bad as the thread where some people seemed to think that having a few beers then getting behind the wheel was acceptable and didn't impair their ability to drive properly...f***ing knobbers!

 

[Brovion]

Jeez what a depressing thread. At least if we now know who are the two biggest and most arrogant wankers on NSC.

What is it with driving that makes people think they're special? We've already had steward433 saying he can handle a car at speed, so therefore it's alright if he bombs around at 20mph over the limit. Now we've got these two immature kids (no wonder they charge more for insurance for young drivers) who think they can 'multi-task'.

What next? People saying it's alright if they drink and drive because they can hold their beer?

 

[Skint Gull]

What is it with driving that makes people think they're special? We've already had steward433 saying he can handle a car at speed, so therefore it's alright if he bombs around at 20mph over the limit.

RANT COMING:

I'm sorry Mr Righteous one but not everybody drives their Micra/Proton/Kia's like you do. Some of us actually ENJOY driving, we don't just see driving as a means of getting from A to B.

That doesn't mean always nailing it to get there as quick as possible, but it does mean that is the conditions allow it we will drive at 20 or EVEN 25 over the limit on a motorway.

Just like the Building Regulations are there to account for COWBOY builders and the FSA are there to regulate dodgy finance salespeople, speed limits are there to account for FUCKWITS who can't drive!

I don't need a sign by the side of the road to tell me to drive 30 (I normally do less) through housing estates, or 70 in rush hour on a motorway. If I'm dring past a school at about 3pm I won't even try and do 20, however if its 3am i'll be more likely to be doing 40.

When I was driving home after the Yeovil game at midnight the other year I was doing 90-95 most of the way, I overtook a car probably every 30 seconds. Hardly dangerous when you consider my car probably stops in less than half the distance of a car built when the speed limits were set.

If we're gonna criticise drivers lets talk about a stereotypical Brovian. I'm sure you're probably the type of driver who sits in the middle lane at 70 even on an empty motorway, or stops at every roundabout even when there's nothing coming, or always seems to be the first person at a set of train barriers or traffic lights (think about it, there's a good reason for that).

Don't get me wrong, incorrect application of speed is dangerous but don't get all high and mighty that peolpe who admit to breaking the speed limit on occasions are all dangerous drivers

:andbreathe:

 

[Brovion]

RANT COMING:

I'm sorry Mr Righteous one but not everybody drives their Micra/Proton/Kia's like you do. Some of us actually ENJOY driving, we don't just see driving as a means of getting from A to B.

That doesn't mean always nailing it to get there as quick as possible, but it does mean that is the conditions allow it we will drive at 20 or EVEN 25 over the limit on a motorway.

Just like the Building Regulations are there to account for COWBOY builders and the FSA are there to regulate dodgy finance salespeople, speed limits are there to account for FUCKWITS who can't drive!

I don't need a sign by the side of the road to tell me to drive 30 (I normally do less) through housing estates, or 70 in rush hour on a motorway. If I'm dring past a school at about 3pm I won't even try and do 20, however if its 3am i'll be more likely to be doing 40.

When I was driving home after the Yeovil game at midnight the other year I was doing 90-95 most of the way, I overtook a car probably every 30 seconds. Hardly dangerous when you consider my car probably stops in less than half the distance of a car built when the speed limits were set.

If we're gonna criticise drivers lets talk about a stereotypical Brovian. I'm sure you're probably the type of driver who sits in the middle lane at 70 even on an empty motorway, or stops at every roundabout even when there's nothing coming, or always seems to be the first person at a set of train barriers or traffic lights (think about it, there's a good reason for that).

Don't get me wrong, incorrect application of speed is dangerous but don't get all high and mighty that peolpe who admit to breaking the speed limit on occasions are all dangerous drivers

:andbreathe:

Bugger me, I touched a nerve there didn't I

You might be surprised to know that I agree with you. On a perfectly clear day (or night) on an empty motorway I probably cruise along at 85-90 - well in excess of the speed limit. And NOTHING annoys me more than drivers who hog the middle lane doing 69.9 miles per hour.

The point I was trying to make was that steward433 reckoned it was okay for HIM to speed, no one else, because he'd been 'trained'. Consequently he wasn't a danger unlike normal drivers such as you or me. Ditto the two boys in this thread. They both reckon they can happily text and drive because they can multi-task and therefore it isn't a problem. If you can't multi-task (like the girl in the accident) then don't try texting and driving.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The thing with all this is, while you can be the world's most proficient texter, you still need to look down at your phone briefly to ensure you send the message to the right person, and the chances are, that split second is the moment that somebody steps into the road in front of you, or the car ahead of you slams the brakes on without you realising.

You can send a text message any time you like, but once you've killed another human being, or ruined their life forever, you can't ever get that split second back to change what you did, no matter how much you wish you could.

 

[Tooting Gull]

The thing with all this is, while you can be the world's most proficient texter, you still need to look down at your phone briefly to ensure you send the message to the right person, and the chances are, that split second is the moment that somebody steps into the road in front of you, or the car ahead of you slams the brakes on without you realising.

You can send a text message any time you like, but once you've killed another human being, or ruined their life forever, you can't ever get that split second back to change what you did, no matter how much you wish you could.

Word. One or two people on this thread need to read and digest that post. It's a huge gamble, even if it doesn't feel like it. You're texting assuming everything will carry on as it was seconds previously. But it might not, and if it doesn't - someone slams on brakes, walks out in road - you won't react in time.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Ali: don't make the mistake- as you seem to be doing- of thinking it won't ever happen to you. Say you hit someone who walked out from behind a parked car as you were driving along texting. Do you think a court will exonerate you on the grounds that you couldn't have anticipated the pedestrian would walk out? I promise you, it won't. Do you think a grieving family will think any more of you because the accident was partially their dead relative's fault? Trust me, they won't, all they will see is somebody who was breaking the law, who might have reacted a fraction quicker if he'd been concentrating, and who deserves to be strung up as a result.

History is littered with guilty souls who wish they'd never had that drink, wish they hadn't made that call, wish they hadn't been in such a hurry or nipped through that red light. They didn't mean to harm anyone, they never envisaged things panning out like they did, they just never thought anything like that would happen to them.

It takes a micro-second to turn a life upside down, and a lifetime to deal with the consequences.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Have a look at THIS - Texting while driving

 

[Skint Gull]

Bugger me, I touched a nerve there didn't I

You might be surprised to know that I agree with you. On a perfectly clear day (or night) on an empty motorway I probably cruise along at 85-90 - well in excess of the speed limit. And NOTHING annoys me more than drivers who hog the middle lane doing 69.9 miles per hour.

The point I was trying to make was that steward433 reckoned it was okay for HIM to speed, no one else, because he'd been 'trained'. Consequently he wasn't a danger unlike normal drivers such as you or me. Ditto the two boys in this thread. They both reckon they can happily text and drive because they can multi-task and therefore it isn't a problem. If you can't multi-task (like the girl in the accident) then don't try texting and driving.

Certainly did touch a nerve! Glad to hear you're not a middle lane driver mate, I'll save my anger for Micra drivers! And yes, Steward is a know it all, better than everyone else chap isn't he

 

[steward 433]

Bugger me, I touched a nerve there didn't I

You might be surprised to know that I agree with you. On a perfectly clear day (or night) on an empty motorway I probably cruise along at 85-90 - well in excess of the speed limit. And NOTHING annoys me more than drivers who hog the middle lane doing 69.9 miles per hour.

The point I was trying to make was that steward433 reckoned it was okay for HIM to speed, no one else, because he'd been 'trained'. Consequently he wasn't a danger unlike normal drivers such as you or me. Ditto the two boys in this thread. They both reckon they can happily text and drive because they can multi-task and therefore it isn't a problem. If you can't multi-task (like the girl in the accident) then don't try texting and driving.

That isn't what i said.

There are thousands of people who are trained in the same or similar manner. I didn't ask if you were or say you were or were not!

p.s. i wouldn't text and drive. And my car has a full hands free kit as well

 

[Napper]

The thing with all this is, while you can be the world's most proficient texter, you still need to look down at your phone briefly to ensure you send the message to the right person, and the chances are, that split second is the moment that somebody steps into the road in front of you, or the car ahead of you slams the brakes on without you realising.

You can send a text message any time you like, but once you've killed another human being, or ruined their life forever, you can't ever get that split second back to change what you did, no matter how much you wish you could.

what about talking to a passenger , getting cd out the glove box , playing with stereo , adjusting mirrors.

Yes the rule is good as it stops the real idiots who probably compose an essay on their phones but surely the odd reply which can generally be typed without looking at phone is ok

 

[Knotty]

what about talking to a passenger , getting cd out the glove box , playing with stereo , adjusting mirrors.

Yes the rule is good as it stops the real idiots who probably compose an essay on their phones but surely the odd reply which can generally be typed without looking at phone is ok

If you don't look at the phone, how do you know who and what you are replying to?

 

[NMH]

It's like reading the newspaper or a book, while driving.
Actually, I take that back - It's more like writing the newspaper or book, so it's worse.

 

[Nemesis]

what about talking to a passenger , getting cd out the glove box , playing with stereo , adjusting mirrors.

Yes the rule is good as it stops the real idiots who probably compose an essay on their phones but surely the odd reply which can generally be typed without looking at phone is ok

Are you really so stupid to think texting is the same as adjusting a mirror or talking to somebody? Where do you normally drive because I don't want a f***ing idiot like you on the same stretch of road as me?

 

[Nemesis]

If you don't look at the phone, how do you know who and what you are replying to?

Remember-he has all that experience so texting is no problem. It'll be some moron like him who plows into a crowded bus stop while texting and likely kill some innocent person while he walks away unhurt.

 

[Lush]

Trouble is, I think a lot of people see driving offences as something to be 'got away with', whether it's speeding, parking, putting on a seatbelt in the backseat or using your mobile phone.

I was amazed to see this in that bastion of respectability WH Smith yesterday.