UK and Europe · Public discussion

Re: bmw driver 0 cyclist 1

Started by stupot · · Last activity · 38 posts · 839 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
15 April 2005
Last activity
18 April 2005
Original author
stupot
Posts
38
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
839
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 38
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Peter B said:

    If you could have stopped safely without damaging his property why didn't
    you?


    Property is theft. :-) Why all this concern for metal? Driver had decided that
    the tradeoff of one minute saved on commute was worth the risk of damage to
    other road users flesh and paid the price of dent in metal.

    +2 pints from me.

    And on the mobile phone thing I dont think the police are enforcing this
    one. Has anyone seen plod actively taking interest? I could had out ~7
    tickets on each journey for one handed roundabout phone chatting antics.

  2. stupot said:

    And on the mobile phone thing I dont think the police are
    enforcing this one. Has anyone seen plod actively taking
    interest?

    No, not at all.

    Quoted message said:

    I could had out ~7 tickets on each journey for one handed
    roundabout phone chatting antics.

    When the law came in I noticed a significant reduction but it didn't
    last very long. It seems to be as bad and as blatant as ever now that
    motorists realise they're almost certain to get away with it.

    --
    Dave...

  3. dkahn400 said:
    stupot said:

    I could had out ~7 tickets on each journey for one handed
    roundabout phone chatting antics.

    When the law came in I noticed a significant reduction but it didn't
    last very long. It seems to be as bad and as blatant as ever now that
    motorists realise they're almost certain to get away with it.

    The realisation is less that they can get away with it, although they
    can, but more that if they do get caught then it is just a fine, no
    points. Before the new law drivers weren't sure what the penalty was as
    it was covered under a different law.

    Colin

  4. stupot said:

    Property is theft. :-) Why all this concern for metal?

    That's why you walk rather than own a bike, I presume? (;-)

    pk

  5. dkahn400 said:
    stupot said:

    And on the mobile phone thing I dont think the police are
    enforcing this one. Has anyone seen plod actively taking
    interest?


    No, not at all.

    Quoted message said:

    I could had out ~7 tickets on each journey for one handed
    roundabout phone chatting antics.


    When the law came in I noticed a significant reduction but it didn't
    last very long. It seems to be as bad and as blatant as ever now that
    motorists realise they're almost certain to get away with it.

    Yes I got just the same impression. I guess that although the fine is
    rather low, that in an actual incident (crash etc) that if the driver
    was driving with one hand and chatting on a phone that fault would
    more certainly lie with the one handed chatter. Though not much
    compensation when you have just been flattened by some [censored]. :-)

  6. dkahn400 said:


    When the law came in I noticed a significant reduction but it didn't
    last very long. It seems to be as bad and as blatant as ever now that
    motorists realise they're almost certain to get away with it.

    Some people just cannot resist answering a ringing phone. I hate it in
    shops or hotels where someone will break off a conversation to answer
    the phone - why should the phone take priority over the conversation I
    was in middle of? Likewise mobiles ringing in the car. I let mine
    ring. It logs who was calling so I can call them back later but it
    seems most people cannot resist the opportunity for some human contact
    down a phone.

    Tony

  7. p.k. said:
    stupot said:

    Property is theft. :-) Why all this concern for metal?

    That's why you walk rather than own a bike, I presume? (;-)

    Perhaps he rides a 100% carbon fibre machine?

  8. Tony Raven said:
    dkahn400 said:


    When the law came in I noticed a significant reduction but it didn't
    last very long. It seems to be as bad and as blatant as ever now that
    motorists realise they're almost certain to get away with it.

    Some people just cannot resist answering a ringing phone. I hate it in
    shops or hotels where someone will break off a conversation to answer
    the phone - why should the phone take priority over the conversation I
    was in middle of? Likewise mobiles ringing in the car. I let mine
    ring. It logs who was calling so I can call them back later but it
    seems most people cannot resist the opportunity for some human contact
    down a phone.

    Yeah, it's funny that. I've been conciously trying not to answer the phone
    if I'm busy doing something else, well at home, anyway, sadly I can't really
    at work. It's difficult, though, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's a
    hangover from the days when phones were relatively rarely used, and so if
    you got a call it was probably something you wanted to know about. Or
    perhaps it's the nagging worry that it might be something important, and
    seeing as you have no way of knowing what it's better to answer. It's the
    same in the car, although I don't answer it I always worry that perhaps I
    should have (it sits almost unreachable in my jeans pocket so I can't easily
    pull it out and look at the display avan if I wanted to).

    It helps that I don't get many calls, though. If I'm in the car it's
    always my missus or the kids wanting a pint of milk on the way home,
    or whatever. At home, it's never for me anyway, because I have teenage
    daughters and the phone isn't mine even though I thought it was, as do BT
    every month when they send me the bill.

    Sigh. One of them would spend her life on the bloody thing if we let her.
    Sadly, for her, we don't though.

    --
    Trevor Barton

  9. Tony Raven said:

    Some people just cannot resist answering a ringing phone. I hate it in
    shops or hotels where someone will break off a conversation to answer
    the phone - why should the phone take priority over the conversation I
    was in middle of?

    Next time you want someone's attention and they are in the middle of a
    conversation, just stand next to them saying "ring ring" until they answer.

    d.

  10. Trevor Barton said:


    Yeah, it's funny that. I've been conciously trying not to answer the phone
    if I'm busy doing something else, well at home, anyway, sadly I can't really
    at work. It's difficult, though, and I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's a
    hangover from the days when phones were relatively rarely used, and so if
    you got a call it was probably something you wanted to know about. Or
    perhaps it's the nagging worry that it might be something important, and
    seeing as you have no way of knowing what it's better to answer. It's the
    same in the car, although I don't answer it I always worry that perhaps I
    should have (it sits almost unreachable in my jeans pocket so I can't easily
    pull it out and look at the display avan if I wanted to).

    People look at me very strange when the phone rings when I am in the
    middle of a conversation with them. I get the "aren't you going to
    answer that" look. If its important the caller will leave a message,
    ring back later or e-mail me. If they walked up and we were talking
    they wouldn't expect to butt into the conversation I was in the middle
    of so why should they be able to do it electronically?

    Quoted message said:


    Sigh. One of them would spend her life on the bloody thing if we let her.
    Sadly, for her, we don't though.

    Our solution is separate lines for each of them on unlimited use
    packages so they can talk to their heart's content.

    Tony

  11. Tony Raven said:
    Trevor Barton said:

    Sigh. One of them would spend her life on the bloody thing if we let her.
    Sadly, for her, we don't though.

    Our solution is separate lines for each of them on unlimited use
    packages so they can talk to their heart's content.

    Mmm, but I don't want to encourage her to do it, because I dislike
    the always-on-the-phone thing and I'd rather she got a life :-)
    So they'll never have their own lines - if she wants to talk to
    her friends (especially the ones she's just spent all day at school
    with), she can learn to do it face to face.

    --
    Trevor Barton

  12. Trevor Barton said:
    Tony Raven said:
    Trevor Barton said:

    Sigh. One of them would spend her life on the bloody thing if we let her.
    Sadly, for her, we don't though.

    Our solution is separate lines for each of them on unlimited use
    packages so they can talk to their heart's content.

    Mmm, but I don't want to encourage her to do it, because I dislike
    the always-on-the-phone thing and I'd rather she got a life :-)
    So they'll never have their own lines - if she wants to talk to
    her friends (especially the ones she's just spent all day at school
    with), she can learn to do it face to face.

    What's wrong with talking on the phone - its a pretty standard way of
    talking these days and I'd much rather that than playing computer games
    or running Dad's taxi to put them into face to face conversation mode.

    Tony

  13. stupot said:
    Peter B said:

    If you could have stopped safely without damaging his property why didn't
    you?


    Property is theft. :-) Why all this concern for metal? Driver had decided that
    the tradeoff of one minute saved on commute was worth the risk of damage to
    other road users flesh and paid the price of dent in metal.


    I don't see anything in the OP to suggest that the driver was risking other
    road users' flesh. I'm not sure that what the driver was doing is illegal.

    --
    Michael MacClancy

  14. "Trevor Barton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Yeah, it's funny that. I've been conciously trying not to answer the


    phone

    Quoted message said:

    if I'm busy doing something else, well at home, anyway, sadly I can't


    really

    Quoted message said:

    at work. It's difficult, though, and I'm not sure why.

    I used to find it difficult but the automated call centre callers have
    hardened me.
    Whether at home or work, fixed or mobile, business or personal I ignore it
    if it suits me (admittedly rarely at work if it's most likely business).
    AFAIC we have answer machines, receptionists, voicemail, SMS, 1471 etc., if
    the caller can't be arsed to leave a message or withholds their number it
    really wasn't important was it?

    Pete

  15. In message <[email hidden]>, Trevor Barton
    <[email hidden]> writes

    Quoted message said:

    Sigh. One of them would spend her life on the bloody thing if we let her.
    Sadly, for her, we don't though.

    My mobile must be one of the least used in London. I'm on a pay as you
    go scheme and monthly bills are £2.50-4.50.

    I can even resist it when it rings while I'm on the bike on the way home
    from work.

    If my desk phone rings at work it's usually a client (whom I'm usually
    desperate to speak to - honest!) so I pick it up even before they can
    hear a ring tone.

    I hardly use the phone at home and if someone calls I find it easy to
    ignore until the answerphone kicks in.

    The same goes for people knocking at the door, especially these days
    when the canvassers are out.

    --
    congokid
    Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
    http://congokid.com

  16. congokid said:


    My mobile must be one of the least used in London. I'm on a pay as you
    go scheme and monthly bills are 2.50-4.50.

    My mobile is one where you buy vouchers in advance (or something, I
    forget exactly what). It's still on teh 20 quid voucher I bought with
    the handset 3 or 4 years ago (again, I forget exactly).

    regards, Ian SMith

  17. Tony Raven said:
    Trevor Barton said:
    Tony Raven said:

    Trevor Barton wrote:

    >Sigh. One of them would spend her life on the bloody thing if we let her.
    >Sadly, for her, we don't though.
    >

    Our solution is separate lines for each of them on unlimited use
    packages so they can talk to their heart's content.

    Mmm, but I don't want to encourage her to do it, because I dislike
    the always-on-the-phone thing and I'd rather she got a life :-)
    So they'll never have their own lines - if she wants to talk to
    her friends (especially the ones she's just spent all day at school
    with), she can learn to do it face to face.

    What's wrong with talking on the phone - its a pretty standard way of
    talking these days and I'd much rather that than playing computer games
    or running Dad's taxi to put them into face to face conversation mode.

    I can see you're not persuaded, then? :-)

    --
    Trevor Barton

  18. dkahn400 said:

    When the law came in I noticed a significant reduction but it didn't
    last very long. It seems to be as bad and as blatant as ever now that
    motorists realise they're almost certain to get away with it.

    I'd agree with you on that. I often notice the drivers who are on the
    phone before I actually see the phone. This morning I was going up the
    M1 in the near-side lane [in a car] and the car immediately in front of
    me appeared to loose control, slowing and veering half-way onto the hard
    shoulder before swiftly resuming position on the main carriageway. As I
    overtook I had a look at the driver, wondering whether they'd fallen
    asleep but, surprise, surprise, they were on the phone.

    The ineffectiveness of the law is underlined for me by the many lorry
    drivers I see with phones pressed to their ears as they (for instance)
    negotiate roundabouts at speed. Clearly even such 'professionals' have
    no concerns about being caught.

    Bob

  19. "stupot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Peter B said:

    If you could have stopped safely without damaging his property why


    didn't

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    you?


    Property is theft. :-) Why all this concern for metal? Driver had decided


    that

    Quoted message said:

    the tradeoff of one minute saved on commute was worth the risk of damage


    to

    Quoted message said:

    other road users flesh and paid the price of dent in metal.

    Alright, try this:

    Colnago rider pulls out in front of me from the left. He tries to 'force'
    his way into the line of traffic (coming the other way) but because of
    his lack of manners no driver will let him in. I have to brake because
    he is completely blocking the lane. I 'allow' my front wheel to rub a small
    patch of paint from his downtube.

  20. On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:31:54 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    OTOH when they do
    phone our usual response is to say "Hang on a minute, I'll go and get
    them and then put the phone on the side and walk away. Ten minutes is
    usually enough time before putting the phone back on the hook.

    Do you tell them that their call is important to you, before putting
    the phone down?

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.