(slightly OT) load of old bollards

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I see the dibbles can still use
> hand-held radio mikes while driving, dunno how that's supposed to be
> different.

I came across the law once, it's findable with a Google, apparently the only
way the law makers could differentiate between those allowed and those not
allowed to do it is by defining which frequency bands were illegal to use on
the go, so they only listed the ones used by mobile phones.

This has to be the ultimate proof that the law is an ass as there's no way
on this earth that anyone can argue the frequency band makes a difference to
the safety or otherwise of using a hand held device.

Greg

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> so in what way does a handheld mike differ from a handheld phone, in the
> matter of using them?

Here is the SI:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm

which says you can use a two way radio and:

"two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is designed or
adapted -
(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages; and
(ii) to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to
960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or
2110 MHz to 2170 MHz

which are the mobile phone bands so the ONLY difference is the frequency, I
would love to see them justify that, or justify that you can use ANY hand
held device while driving so long as it can't do both transmitting and
receiving, that means fiddling with a GPS that doesn't have Bluetooth is not
covered by this law but if it does it is!.

Of course they try and justify these anomalies by pointing out that anything
the police consider distracting while driving could see you prosecuted in
the event of an accident, so we're back to mr 'I am the law'. It's a
complete f*****g mess, they also insist that this law applies while stuck in
traffic unless in "exceptional traffic jams" !. Here's their explanation of
it and you can see it's littered with attempts to justify the anomalies.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_025216.hcsp

Greg

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:37:41 +0000, beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>
>>In message <[email protected]>
>> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>and that's often even more trivial than driving where you're not allowed.
>>>Under some conditions, it's undoubtedly dangerous to drive using a hand-held
>>>phone. Under other conditions, it isn't. I see the dibbles can still use
>>>hand-held radio mikes while driving, dunno how that's supposed to be
>>>different.
>>
>>Anyone can use radio (R/T) - it's specifically exempted from the
>>legislation - presumambly that includes CB as well.
>
>
> so in what way does a handheld mike differ from a handheld phone, in the
> matter of using them?

You weren't expecting joined-up thinking from our present legislators
were you?

I'd add cigars/cigarettes etc. to the list of non-approved driving
activities, too.

In message <[email protected]>
Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

> Austin Shackles wrote:
> > On or around Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:37:41 +0000, beamendsltd
> > <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
> >
> >
> >>In message <[email protected]>
> >> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>and that's often even more trivial than driving where you're not allowed.
> >>>Under some conditions, it's undoubtedly dangerous to drive using a hand-held
> >>>phone. Under other conditions, it isn't. I see the dibbles can still use
> >>>hand-held radio mikes while driving, dunno how that's supposed to be
> >>>different.
> >>
> >>Anyone can use radio (R/T) - it's specifically exempted from the
> >>legislation - presumambly that includes CB as well.
> >
> >
> > so in what way does a handheld mike differ from a handheld phone, in the
> > matter of using them?
>
> You weren't expecting joined-up thinking from our present legislators
> were you?
>
> I'd add cigars/cigarettes etc. to the list of non-approved driving
> activities, too.

and presumably chocolate bars, appples, infact any activity at all
then, including the radio/CD/tape, SatNav, all of which are far
more distracting than lighting a fag.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

beamendsltd wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>
> Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Austin Shackles wrote:
>>
>>>On or around Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:37:41 +0000, beamendsltd
>>><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In message <[email protected]>
>>>> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and that's often even more trivial than driving where you're not allowed.
>>>>>Under some conditions, it's undoubtedly dangerous to drive using a hand-held
>>>>>phone. Under other conditions, it isn't. I see the dibbles can still use
>>>>>hand-held radio mikes while driving, dunno how that's supposed to be
>>>>>different.
>>>>
>>>>Anyone can use radio (R/T) - it's specifically exempted from the
>>>>legislation - presumambly that includes CB as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>so in what way does a handheld mike differ from a handheld phone, in the
>>>matter of using them?
>>
>>You weren't expecting joined-up thinking from our present legislators
>>were you?
>>
>>I'd add cigars/cigarettes etc. to the list of non-approved driving
>>activities, too.
>
>
> and presumably chocolate bars, appples, infact any activity at all
> then, including the radio/CD/tape, SatNav, all of which are far
> more distracting than lighting a fag.
>
> Richard

I'd certainly have to plead guilty on the SatNav front (or plain old
reliable GPS in my case) and probably the radio when the buttons have
lost their sense of direction. Food is already off the menu - remember
the case of the drink of water while sitting stationary at the traffic
lights?

In terms of 'concentration' and tobacco products you could well be
right but the consequences of 'dropping' it are a little more
distracting than dropping the Yorkie. Better ban wasps and bees on the
inside, too - very distracting.

In message <[email protected]>
Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

> beamendsltd wrote:
>
> > In message <[email protected]>
> > Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Austin Shackles wrote:
> >>
> >>>On or around Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:37:41 +0000, beamendsltd
> >>><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In message <[email protected]>
> >>>> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>and that's often even more trivial than driving where you're not allowed.
> >>>>>Under some conditions, it's undoubtedly dangerous to drive using a hand-held
> >>>>>phone. Under other conditions, it isn't. I see the dibbles can still use
> >>>>>hand-held radio mikes while driving, dunno how that's supposed to be
> >>>>>different.
> >>>>
> >>>>Anyone can use radio (R/T) - it's specifically exempted from the
> >>>>legislation - presumambly that includes CB as well.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>so in what way does a handheld mike differ from a handheld phone, in the
> >>>matter of using them?
> >>
> >>You weren't expecting joined-up thinking from our present legislators
> >>were you?
> >>
> >>I'd add cigars/cigarettes etc. to the list of non-approved driving
> >>activities, too.
> >
> >
> > and presumably chocolate bars, appples, infact any activity at all
> > then, including the radio/CD/tape, SatNav, all of which are far
> > more distracting than lighting a fag.
> >
> > Richard
>
> I'd certainly have to plead guilty on the SatNav front (or plain old
> reliable GPS in my case) and probably the radio when the buttons have
> lost their sense of direction. Food is already off the menu - remember
> the case of the drink of water while sitting stationary at the traffic
> lights?
>
> In terms of 'concentration' and tobacco products you could well be
> right but the consequences of 'dropping' it are a little more
> distracting than dropping the Yorkie. Better ban wasps and bees on the
> inside, too - very distracting.

Absolutely - conversation too. Dropping you fag, a very rare
occcurence at todays prices, just means pulling over though, no
big deal.

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

On 2006-11-09, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

> I'd certainly have to plead guilty on the SatNav front (or plain old
> reliable GPS in my case)

Satnav is a load better than trying to figure out where you are from
maps on your knees, at this point some old curmudgeon usually pipes up
that he "knows his way" or "doesn't get distracted" by maps, alas
there is a real world in which to live though.

> In terms of 'concentration' and tobacco products you could well be
> right but the consequences of 'dropping' it are a little more
> distracting than dropping the Yorkie. Better ban wasps and bees on the
> inside, too - very distracting.

Ban kids and wives in the car, I think that one might get some support ;-)

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On or around Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:13:03 +0000, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>and presumably chocolate bars, appples, infact any activity at all
>then, including the radio/CD/tape, SatNav, all of which are far
>more distracting than lighting a fag.

it's not the lighting of it that distracts you from driving, it's dropping
the lit fag into your crotch...

oh, and add passengers to the list, they can be unbelievably distracting.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
In Touch: Get in touch with yourself by touching yourself.
If somebody is watching, stop touching yourself.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:41:49 +0000, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> scribbled the following nonsense:

>On or around Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:35:14 +0000, Simon Isaacs
><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:26:48 -0000, "Greg"
>><[email protected]> scribbled the following nonsense:
>>
>>>"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Stinger, anyone?
>>>
>>>Yeah that's it, a stinger automatically deployed by every one of those
>>>flashing 30 signs, well they couldn't help but see the speed limit sign so
>>>they've only themselves to blame, and if the car careers off into
>>>pedestrians just prosecute the driver, no problem
>>>
>>>Greg
>>>
>>
>>stingers are designed to supposedly deflate the tyres so that there is
>>no loss of control
>
>not convinced by that argument, mind. probably not if the vehicles isn't
>going all that fast in the first place, but they're deployed against things
>doing 80 in a town. I'd not rate my chances much of controlling a car on 4
>flats at 80.
>
>what's really needed is a sort of sticky goo that grabs the car.

where's Spiderman when you need him......;-)
--

Simon Isaacs

"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote"
George Jean Nathan (1882-1955)

ROT13 me....

Austin Shackles wrote:

|| and that's often even more trivial than driving where you're not
|| allowed. Under some conditions, it's undoubtedly dangerous to drive
|| using a hand-held phone. Under other conditions, it isn't. I see
|| the dibbles can still use hand-held radio mikes while driving, dunno
|| how that's supposed to be different.

I can't quote chapter and verse, but there is a lot of research to suggest
that it's not the hand-held bit that is the problem (after all, as others
have said, it's perfectly easy to light a fag, eat an apple etc quite safely
while driving). The cause of the danger is the nature of the call and what
it does to your concentration. R/T users tend to be speaking in clear and
defined terms, and each "end" of the conversation is aware of the fact that
one or both of you is driving. I've had plenty of CB conversations that can
break for a minute or so while one of the parties negotiates a difficult
bit - you just wait for traffic to resume. Mobile phone calls (hand-held or
hands-free) are different - shopping lists, questions as to why one isn't
home yet, protestations of undying love. With R/T (I find) you are driving,
with a brief and precise conversation going on in moments when you can
afford the break in concentration. With a mobile conversation, you are
talking and trying to drive during the pauses in the chat. The stats are
there - R/T users don't have more accidents than the average, while mobile
phone users do.

--
Rich
==============================

2001 Disco II ES auto
1971 S2a 88" petrol
1991 Transit Camper

Take out the obvious to email me.

Greg wrote:

|| Add a typical 4MPG, low occupancy on most journeys, the age of the
|| UK bus fleet, their refusal to stop their engines when parked up,

Really? I used to drive an old Bella Vega 38-seater, and the worst I got
from that was 13mpg.

--
Rich
==============================

2001 Disco II ES auto
1971 S2a 88" petrol
1991 Transit Camper

Take out the obvious to email me.

Srtgray wrote:

|| steve Taylor wrote:
||| Srtgray wrote:
|||
|||| Quelle probleme? Aucun difficulte, si vous etes preparer a faire
|||| la travaille.
|||
|||
||| Vous ? N'êtes-vous pas notre ami de beaucoup d'années ?
|||
||| Steve
||| PS Those accents are bastards to type.
||
|| Yes, I must get myself a French keyboard (cue joke: Why did General
|| de Gaulle have Latin letters on his cap? Because French ones would
|| have looked out of place)
||
|| Stuart

And if you put a 1st class stamp on a French Letter, does it make the male
come quicker?

No, OK, not worth it ...

--
Rich
==============================

2001 Disco II ES auto
1971 S2a 88" petrol
1991 Transit Camper

Take out the obvious to email me.

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 20:44:55 -0000, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> scribbled the following
nonsense:

>Srtgray wrote:
>
>|| steve Taylor wrote:
>||| Srtgray wrote:
>|||
>|||| Quelle probleme? Aucun difficulte, si vous etes preparer a faire
>|||| la travaille.
>|||
>|||
>||| Vous ? N'êtes-vous pas notre ami de beaucoup d'années ?
>|||
>||| Steve
>||| PS Those accents are bastards to type.
>||
>|| Yes, I must get myself a French keyboard (cue joke: Why did General
>|| de Gaulle have Latin letters on his cap? Because French ones would
>|| have looked out of place)
>||
>|| Stuart
>
>And if you put a 1st class stamp on a French Letter, does it make the male
>come quicker?
>

b3tard, you've made me waste some of my homebrew lager.....
--

Simon Isaacs

"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote"
George Jean Nathan (1882-1955)

ROT13 me....

"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Greg wrote:
>
> || Add a typical 4MPG, low occupancy on most journeys, the age of the
> || UK bus fleet, their refusal to stop their engines when parked up,
>
> Really? I used to drive an old Bella Vega 38-seater, and the worst I got
> from that was 13mpg.

We're crossing into an old thread, but I was told by the bloke in charge of
the new park and ride scheme that the average figure for a bus around here
is 4mpg, don't forget they sit at stops for minutes on end with their
engines running (never could get an answer why, other than laziness), stop
and start more than most vehicles, and are some of the oldest vehicles on
the roads, often getting a facelift to make you think otherwise.

I'd love to see some proper figures gathered but my guess is that modern,
small, low polluting turbo diesels, driven from A to B and stopped, are
better for the environment overall. Of course if that's the case then the
best thing for the environment would be lots of spending on roads so cars
could get to their destination quickly without hold-ups, not exactly what a
government wants to hear though...
Greg

In message <[email protected]>
"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> || and that's often even more trivial than driving where you're not
> || allowed. Under some conditions, it's undoubtedly dangerous to drive
> || using a hand-held phone. Under other conditions, it isn't. I see
> || the dibbles can still use hand-held radio mikes while driving, dunno
> || how that's supposed to be different.
>
> I can't quote chapter and verse, but there is a lot of research to suggest
> that it's not the hand-held bit that is the problem (after all, as others
> have said, it's perfectly easy to light a fag, eat an apple etc quite safely
> while driving). The cause of the danger is the nature of the call and what
> it does to your concentration. R/T users tend to be speaking in clear and
> defined terms, and each "end" of the conversation is aware of the fact that
> one or both of you is driving. I've had plenty of CB conversations that can
> break for a minute or so while one of the parties negotiates a difficult
> bit - you just wait for traffic to resume. Mobile phone calls (hand-held or
> hands-free) are different - shopping lists, questions as to why one isn't
> home yet, protestations of undying love. With R/T (I find) you are driving,
> with a brief and precise conversation going on in moments when you can
> afford the break in concentration. With a mobile conversation, you are
> talking and trying to drive during the pauses in the chat. The stats are
> there - R/T users don't have more accidents than the average, while mobile
> phone users do.
>

Absolutely agreed.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

On 2006-11-09, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:

> The stats are there - R/T users don't have more accidents than the
> average, while mobile phone users do.

TBH I suspect the stats are skewed somewhat as a far greater
proportion of radio users are professional trained drivers of some
kind, whereas mobile phone users are just about anyone.

After all it's entirely possible and quite frequent in my experience
for even hands-free mobile phone users to say "hang on a minute..."
then come back to say "sorry tricky junction" or "just parking up".

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings wrote:
> On 2006-11-09, Richard Brookman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The stats are there - R/T users don't have more accidents than the
>> average, while mobile phone users do.
>
> TBH I suspect the stats are skewed somewhat as a far greater
> proportion of radio users are professional trained drivers of some
> kind, whereas mobile phone users are just about anyone.
>

And who seem to think the only qualification necessary to drive is the ability to
operate a mobile phone!

> After all it's entirely possible and quite frequent in my experience
> for even hands-free mobile phone users to say "hang on a minute..."
> then come back to say "sorry tricky junction" or "just parking up".



--
Don't say it cannot be done, rather what is needed to do it!

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!

Greg wrote:

|| "Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote
|| in message news:[email protected]...
||| Greg wrote:
|||
||||| Add a typical 4MPG, low occupancy on most journeys, the age of the
||||| UK bus fleet, their refusal to stop their engines when parked up,
|||
||| Really? I used to drive an old Bella Vega 38-seater, and the worst
||| I got from that was 13mpg.
||
|| We're crossing into an old thread, but I was told by the bloke in
|| charge of the new park and ride scheme that the average figure for a
|| bus around here is 4mpg, don't forget they sit at stops for minutes
|| on end with their engines running (never could get an answer why,
|| other than laziness), stop and start more than most vehicles, and
|| are some of the oldest vehicles on the roads, often getting a
|| facelift to make you think otherwise.

You're right, when I think about it. This was used as a school bus, and did
mainly longish trips. It was rarely left to sit idling. The school had two
buses - the Bella Vega that carried 38 and did 13mpg, and a twin-wheeled
Tranny crewbus that took 16 and did 16mpg.

--
Rich
==============================

2001 Disco II ES auto
1971 S2a 88" petrol
1991 Transit Camper

Take out the obvious to email me.

Ian Rawlings wrote:

|| On 2006-11-09, Richard Brookman
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| The stats are there - R/T users don't have more accidents than the
||| average, while mobile phone users do.
||
|| TBH I suspect the stats are skewed somewhat as a far greater
|| proportion of radio users are professional trained drivers of some
|| kind, whereas mobile phone users are just about anyone.

True enough.

|| After all it's entirely possible and quite frequent in my experience
|| for even hands-free mobile phone users to say "hang on a minute..."
|| then come back to say "sorry tricky junction" or "just parking up".

True - but they often don't. Still at least it's better than reading a map,
as I recently saw one guy in an Audi doing - M4, lane 3, 90mph.

--
Rich
==============================

2001 Disco II ES auto
1971 S2a 88" petrol
1991 Transit Camper

Take out the obvious to email me.

Well in the Coventry Transport Museum sits an old Daimler double decker and
next to it a single decker Maudsley, now the Daimler, 10 ltrs and all claims
a top speed of 50 mph and 13 mpg, whilst the Maudsley was something like 6
mpg, hard to figure out why the double decker was more economical. If I
could swap the engine from the Daimler, a Gardner diesel, just think what it
would do for my humble series.


--
Larry

Series 3 Rust and Holes


"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Greg wrote:
>
> || "Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote
> || in message news:[email protected]...
> ||| Greg wrote:
> |||
> ||||| Add a typical 4MPG, low occupancy on most journeys, the age of the
> ||||| UK bus fleet, their refusal to stop their engines when parked up,
> |||
> ||| Really? I used to drive an old Bella Vega 38-seater, and the worst
> ||| I got from that was 13mpg.
> ||
> || We're crossing into an old thread, but I was told by the bloke in
> || charge of the new park and ride scheme that the average figure for a
> || bus around here is 4mpg, don't forget they sit at stops for minutes
> || on end with their engines running (never could get an answer why,
> || other than laziness), stop and start more than most vehicles, and
> || are some of the oldest vehicles on the roads, often getting a
> || facelift to make you think otherwise.
>
> You're right, when I think about it. This was used as a school bus, and
> did mainly longish trips. It was rarely left to sit idling. The school
> had two buses - the Bella Vega that carried 38 and did 13mpg, and a
> twin-wheeled Tranny crewbus that took 16 and did 16mpg.
>
> --
> Rich
> ==============================
>
> 2001 Disco II ES auto
> 1971 S2a 88" petrol
> 1991 Transit Camper
>
> Take out the obvious to email me.
>