OT: So stupid!

Bronzie said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6335491.stm
...
A health and safety expert has been banned from driving after he was
caught shaving as he overtook a line of rush hour traffic at 70mph.
...
The sheriff found him guilty of careless driving.

So /why/ I wonder do we need a specific law prohibiting the use of
mobile phones, were they worried that it would be impossible to prove
that it ever constituted 'careless driving'.

--
Matt B

Bronzie said:

This has to be eligible for the "most stupid behaviour behind the
wheel ever award". I wonder if the guy did a Risk Assessment for this
manoeuvre first?

I hope they said that to him while being sentenced

Activity: Carelessly driving on way to first aid course
Risk: Losing driving licence
Severity: Very high (could lose job as a result)

If he does lose his job, I wonder if it will be because he is unable
to drive or whether it will be for bringing the HSE into disrepute!

peter

"Bronzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
This has to be eligible for the "most stupid behaviour behind the
wheel ever award". I wonder if the guy did a Risk Assessment for this
manoeuvre first?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6335491.stm

Hutcheson, from Blantyre, South Lanarkshire, said he was a health and
safety inspector and was running late to deliver a first aid training
course in Dundee.

Sheriff Michael Fletcher heard that Hutcheson stood to lose his job
without a licence.

The sheriff found him guilty of careless driving.

"It is near the top end of careless driving, considering the
conditions you were driving in and what was going on," the sheriff
said.

Quite obviously he deserved to lose his job. What faith could anyone have
in a H&S inspector who disregards safety?

And how come they get it right north of the border? In England the police
would have offered to change the batteries and prosecuted the cyclist he'd
run over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 611 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

Matt B said:

Bronzie said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6335491.stm
...
A health and safety expert has been banned from driving after he was
caught shaving as he overtook a line of rush hour traffic at 70mph.
...
The sheriff found him guilty of careless driving.

So /why/ I wonder do we need a specific law prohibiting the use of
mobile phones, were they worried that it would be impossible to prove
that it ever constituted 'careless driving'.

A specific law is needed for mobile phones because the problem is so
widespread. It also gives advice on suitable sentencing.

If a crime is only committed a couple of times a year a general purpose
law is better.

Did I state this in short enough words for you, or do you need them
shorter.

When did you last post a constructive post to this ng.

Martin.

Matt B' 'matt.bourke said:

Bronzie said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6335491.stm
...
A health and safety expert has been banned from driving after he was
caught shaving as he overtook a line of rush hour traffic at 70mph.
...
The sheriff found him guilty of careless driving.

So /why/ I wonder do we need a specific law prohibiting the use of
mobile phones, were they worried that it would be impossible to prove
that it ever constituted 'careless driving'.

Because it makes the offence specific and provable on the basis of direct
evidence: using a phone, and moreover does not require the offence to be
seen by a police officer (mobile records are used in prosecutions)

Careless driving or not being in proper control are offences requiring
observation and measurement against a standard.

pk

p.k. said the following on 07/02/2007 08:30:

Quoted message said:

Because it makes the offence specific and provable on the basis of direct
evidence: using a phone, and moreover does not require the offence to be
seen by a police officer (mobile records are used in prosecutions)

If the offence wasn't seen by a police officer, how can anyone prove
that it was the driver who was on the phone without at least one truly
independent witness in addition to the person reporting it? For
instance, my phone has been used by a passenger whilst I'm driving. The
onus isn't on me to prove I was wasn't using it; it's on the prosecution
to prove I was. (Although the 'innocent until proven guilty' theory
seems less valid these days thanks to the media)

Quoted message said:

Careless driving or not being in proper control are offences requiring
observation and measurement against a standard.

Absolutely!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Martin Dann said:

Matt B said:

Bronzie said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6335491.stm
...
A health and safety expert has been banned from driving after he was
caught shaving as he overtook a line of rush hour traffic at 70mph.
...
The sheriff found him guilty of careless driving.

So /why/ I wonder do we need a specific law prohibiting the use of
mobile phones, were they worried that it would be impossible to prove
that it ever constituted 'careless driving'.

A specific law is needed for mobile phones because the problem is so
widespread.

The problem with a specific law is that it tends to 'excuse' other
activities equally, or more, dangerous. One law should be enough to
cover doing anything likely to harm others, whether it be driving or
felling a tree.

Quoted message said:

It also gives advice on suitable sentencing.

That could be based on level of 'danger'. Holding a banana to your ear
whilst talking on a hands-free phone is no less dangerous, but is
exempt. In fact talking on a hands-free phone /without/ the banana is
/as/ dangerous, but peculiarly also exempt. Don't you think the reason
for the law is more to do with tabloid set agenda and spin than road
safety, and as such should be condemned.

Quoted message said:

If a crime is only committed a couple of times a year a general purpose
law is better.

Explain your reasoning.

Quoted message said:

When did you last post a constructive post to this ng.

You don't consider the questioning of dubious laws and regulations as
positive?

You don't consider discussing ideas for improving road safety to be
positive?

--
Matt B

p.k. said:

Matt B' 'matt.bourke said:

Bronzie said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6335491.stm
...
A health and safety expert has been banned from driving after he was
caught shaving as he overtook a line of rush hour traffic at 70mph.
...
The sheriff found him guilty of careless driving.

So /why/ I wonder do we need a specific law prohibiting the use of
mobile phones, were they worried that it would be impossible to prove
that it ever constituted 'careless driving'.

Because it makes the offence specific and provable on the basis of direct
evidence: using a phone, and moreover does not require the offence to be
seen by a police officer (mobile records are used in prosecutions)

So it makes it easy to get a prosecution whether the aact was dangerous
or not. That sums it up nicely really. The same level of 'justice' is
applied to many motoring laws - yet relatively infrequently, if at all
to laws targeting other activities.

Quoted message said:

Careless driving or not being in proper control are offences requiring
observation and measurement against a standard.

Yes, they need proof that something dangerous was being done.

--
Matt B

Matt B' 'matt.bourke said:

p.k. said:

Matt B' 'matt.bourke said:

Bronzie wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6335491.stm
> ...
> A health and safety expert has been banned from driving after he
> was caught shaving as he overtook a line of rush hour traffic at
> 70mph. ...
> The sheriff found him guilty of careless driving.
So /why/ I wonder do we need a specific law prohibiting the use of
mobile phones, were they worried that it would be impossible to
prove that it ever constituted 'careless driving'.

Because it makes the offence specific and provable on the basis of
direct evidence: using a phone, and moreover does not require the
offence to be seen by a police officer (mobile records are used in
prosecutions)

So it makes it easy to get a prosecution whether the aact was
dangerous or not. That sums it up nicely really. The same level of
'justice' is applied to many motoring laws - yet relatively
infrequently, if at all to laws targeting other activities.

Bit ott on this one Matt!

Want the offence does is make it possivle to deterime afgter the event if a
driver involved in a crash was committing a sepeific offence - using a hand
held phone. Without the sepecific offence, it is ope to the driver to calim
the phome was on but he had put it down and was in full control at the time
of the accidnet. That argument is not available now.

pk

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Martin Dann said:

It also gives advice on suitable sentencing.

That could be based on level of 'danger'. Holding a banana to your ear
whilst talking on a hands-free phone is no less dangerous, but is
exempt. In fact talking on a hands-free phone /without/ the banana is
/as/ dangerous, but peculiarly also exempt. Don't you think the reason
for the law is more to do with tabloid set agenda and spin than road
safety, and as such should be condemned.

I have to disagree, people have a more intense "relationship" with their phone.

When they hold it they focus on the phone hence they drive so badly, it is not
the driving with one hand, it is the distraction of the phone.
--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

Buck said:

On 2007-02-07 09:20:58 +0000, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>

Quoted message said:

Martin Dann said:

It also gives advice on suitable sentencing.

That could be based on level of 'danger'. Holding a banana to your
ear whilst talking on a hands-free phone is no less dangerous, but is
exempt. In fact talking on a hands-free phone /without/ the banana is
/as/ dangerous, but peculiarly also exempt. Don't you think the
reason for the law is more to do with tabloid set agenda and spin than
road safety, and as such should be condemned.

I have to disagree, people have a more intense "relationship" with their
phone.

When they hold it they focus on the phone hence they drive so badly, it
is not
the driving with one hand, it is the distraction of the phone.

Studies have shown that the distraction is the same for hands-free phone
conversations.

Laws should be designed to reduce victims, not to make it easy to
convict motorists whether they doing something dangerous or not.
Negligent or dangerous actions could be covered by a single law, and
that could apply in all cases, /even/ if a car isn't involved.

--
Matt B

p.k. said:

Matt B' 'matt.bourke said:

p.k. said:

Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
> Bronzie wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6335491.stm
>> ...
>> A health and safety expert has been banned from driving after he
>> was caught shaving as he overtook a line of rush hour traffic at
>> 70mph. ...
>> The sheriff found him guilty of careless driving.
> So /why/ I wonder do we need a specific law prohibiting the use of
> mobile phones, were they worried that it would be impossible to
> prove that it ever constituted 'careless driving'.
Because it makes the offence specific and provable on the basis of
direct evidence: using a phone, and moreover does not require the
offence to be seen by a police officer (mobile records are used in
prosecutions)

So it makes it easy to get a prosecution whether the aact was
dangerous or not. That sums it up nicely really. The same level of
'justice' is applied to many motoring laws - yet relatively
infrequently, if at all to laws targeting other activities.

Bit ott on this one Matt!

You think?

Quoted message said:

Want the offence does is make it possivle to deterime afgter the event if a
driver involved in a crash was committing a sepeific offence - using a hand
held phone.

After what event? And why does it not apply to the equally dangerous
act of using a hands-free phone? It is created to be easy to enforce,
not to be just, or to target the actual danger.

Quoted message said:

Without the sepecific offence, it is ope to the driver to calim
the phome was on but he had put it down and was in full control at the time
of the accidnet. That argument is not available now.

Eh? The onus should be to prove that a dangerous act was being
committed, not to prove that a phone wasn't being held.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Martin Dann said:

Matt B said:

Bronzie wrote:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6335491.stm
> ...
> A health and safety expert has been banned from driving after he was
> caught shaving as he overtook a line of rush hour traffic at 70mph.
> ...
> The sheriff found him guilty of careless driving.

So /why/ I wonder do we need a specific law prohibiting the use of
mobile phones, were they worried that it would be impossible to prove
that it ever constituted 'careless driving'.

A specific law is needed for mobile phones because the problem is so
widespread.

The problem with a specific law is that it tends to 'excuse' other
activities equally, or more, dangerous. One law should be enough to
cover doing anything likely to harm others, whether it be driving or
felling a tree.

So the government should remove all laws from the statute books and
replace them with one saying "Don't be naughty or do bad things".

That would need a huge amount of interperation by the police and courts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It also gives advice on suitable sentencing.

That could be based on level of 'danger'. Holding a banana to your ear
whilst talking on a hands-free phone is no less dangerous, but is
exempt. In fact talking on a hands-free phone /without/ the banana is
/as/ dangerous, but peculiarly also exempt. Don't you think the reason
for the law is more to do with tabloid set agenda and spin than road
safety, and as such should be condemned.

No, you would probably just be sectioned.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a crime is only committed a couple of times a year a general
purpose law is better.

A general purpose law is useful for when specific laws don't apply. If a
problem is widespread, that is when specific laws brought in.

e.g. If exceeding the speed limit was not governed by a specific law,
then the law against dangerous or careless driving would have to be
used. This would be much harder to prove as the prosecution would have
to show that exceeding the speed limit was dangerous in every case.

By legislating against exceeding the speed limit, it is easier to prove,
and easier to set sentencing guidelines.

General purpose laws are there for things like when someone is caught
shaving whilst driving, which are not covered by a specific law.

Quoted message said:

Explain your reasoning.

Quoted message said:

When did you last post a constructive post to this ng.

You don't consider the questioning of dubious laws and regulations as
positive?

That is all you want to do in this NG, do you actually own and use a
pedal bike?

Quoted message said:

You don't consider discussing ideas for improving road safety to be
positive?

It seems to me that your idea for improving road safety is to allow car
drivers to do what they want and ignore speed limits.

Martin.

Martin Dann said:

Matt B said:

Martin Dann said:

Matt B wrote:

The problem with a specific law is that it tends to 'excuse' other
activities equally, or more, dangerous. One law should be enough to
cover doing anything likely to harm others, whether it be driving or
felling a tree.

So the government should remove all laws from the statute books and
replace them with one saying "Don't be naughty or do bad things".

All the ones that could just as well be covered by that, yes - why not.

Quoted message said:

That would need a huge amount of interperation by the police and courts.

You'd stick a chance of getting justice though. Today people are
regularly convicted for doing things which may are completely harmless
in the circumstances.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a crime is only committed a couple of times a year a general
purpose law is better.

A general purpose law is useful for when specific laws don't apply. If a
problem is widespread, that is when specific laws brought in.

Why?

Quoted message said:

e.g. If exceeding the speed limit was not governed by a specific law,
then the law against dangerous or careless driving would have to be
used.

Yes, and why not? A speed can be dangerous, even if within the speed
limit, and some would say speeding is not always dangerous.

Quoted message said:

This would be much harder to prove as the prosecution would have
to show that exceeding the speed limit was dangerous in every case.

So we have laws, not because they are /just/, but because they don't
demand much proof!

Quoted message said:

By legislating against exceeding the speed limit, it is easier to prove,
and easier to set sentencing guidelines.

And useless for catching those who cause the majority of casualty
accidents using inappropriate speed, because the majority of such
accidents occur /within/ the speed limit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When did you last post a constructive post to this ng.

You don't consider the questioning of dubious laws and regulations as
positive?

That is all you want to do in this NG,

No, see below.

Quoted message said:

do you actually own and use a
pedal bike?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You don't consider discussing ideas for improving road safety to be
positive?

It seems to me that your idea for improving road safety is to allow car
drivers to do what they want and ignore speed limits.

Eh? If by that you mean that under the measures that I favour they are
unlikely to be driving at speeds anywhere near the current limits where
they are likely to encounter vulnerable road users then, yes, I suppose so.

--
Matt B