.. Vauxhall Tigra ..
Easy catch for the rozzers.. that model car is only every driven by total knobs.
A Norfolk man is potentially facing "six points on his licence and thousands of pounds in fines" after cops nabbed him allegedly driving with his knees while manipulating two mobile phones. The unnamed 34-year-old driver was clocked earlier this month on a 70mph stretch of the A47 near Norwich during a two-week clampdown on …
As he was uninsured it's probably the original hard-top version rather than the newer CC.
People who can't afford insurance can't usually afford a decent car either.
Something tells me that the next time he's caught he'll be on two mobiles with no insurance, no tax, no MOT and in the middle of a driving ban.
I'm sure I didn't used to be so jaded.
<quote>A Norfolk Police spokesman said: "Driving while using a mobile phone means you are not concentrating fully on the road. Using one mobile phone is silly but two mobile phones is amazingly silly."</quote>
The English are known for their art of understating instead of saying things directly, especially the worse the event (*), but that astonishing statement from an authority is borderline misleading!
(*) A famous, but at least humorous example: British Airways pilot Eric Moody in 1982, after flying through a cloud of volcanic ash over Indonesia:
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."
Should be banned from driving for life. Even if he had killed someone he probably would have been allowed to drive again at some point.
When are people going to realise that owning and driving a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right? a licence comes with conditions that you obey the law.
Thousands are killed on the roads every year and it isn't acceptable. Sure, the accident numbers have been falling for years but try telling that to someone who has just lost their partner or kids.
Someone who drives while uninsured may not take much notice of being banned.
Handcuffing him to the steering wheel for a month might make him think about what his hands should do in a car.
(No toilet breaks, no sleep breaks, just 31 days in a car with enough water to make sure he doesn't
die of thirst.)
Though why should the steering wheel be attached to a car? he's already proven that he shouldn't be allowed in one until he learns otherwise.
Hmm - remember the Star Trek exploding collars? maybe something like that but tuned to the steering wheel so that two hands must be on it - one hand can be off the wheel for up to, say 10 secs?, after that though it's headache time.
(the above is the sort of thinking that means I should never be allowed to make laws)
Also agree that the power of any government to impose laws is a privilege conveyed on that government by the electorate, not a God-given divine right to those we place in power.
Certain large English-speaking powers could do well to remember.
(Before the flood of downvotes, it wouldn't need a law for this arsewipe to meet my baseball bat)
"The driver has a choice - the victim(s) don't."
Yes they do, everyone has a choice. They could choose not to walk on the dual carriageway 70mph section of the A47. If in a car they could choose to leave sufficient space to allow them to avoid another car. Similarly, all the fuss about speeding near schools could be eliminated if parents taught their children to cross at the lights only when the green man shows.
I'm sick of people moaning about the dangers on roads take some responsibility for your own safety for a change. If a car is out of control going too fast and runs a child over on a pavement then the driver should of course be punished. If the driver is going in a straight line on a straight road with no pedestrians in sight then leave him the hell alone. If the car behind is too close to stop in an emergency then THEY should be punished. If a child runs into the road on a dual carriageway I WILL SUE THEM for damages to my car, assuming they survive, otherwise I will sue the parents!!
Under the law, pedestrians have the right of way on all roads except motorways. So if you hit a child on a dual carriageway, then there is a high chance that you are probably going to be found at fault.
From your comment, I am going to presume that you have no children. But I wonder how you would react if it was a child of yours that were to be injured on the road? Would you still feel that the driver was not at fault? (I suspect not)
As it happens, I once had to watch as the driver of a van knocked down a mother and child crossing the road. I was subsequently called as a witness - he was doing over 60mph in a 40 mph zone, and overtaking on the brow of a hill, which left him on the wrong side of the road as well. I had to provide first aid for the 2 pedestrians - not a pretty sight.
BTW, just noticed the new icons (OK I've been busy) Quite like them.
I think you will find (according to the Road Traffic Act) that pedestrians do NOT have right of way on roads (only on pavements). Think of the chaos caused if pedestrians where allowed to roam like sheep on a major dual carriageway?
BUT, the area of the zig-zag lines at a pedestrian crossing, is defined by the Road Traffic Act as a "Pedestrian controlled zone" - ie: if you hit a pedestrian within the zig-zags it's your fault.
The UK does have a jaywalking offence, but it is seldom used. UK law, however, is very biased towards the pedestrian - even if the pedestrian is found to be the cause of an accident.
Teaching kids (and some adults) to USE crossings and only walk when the green man shows is sensible. Everyone (pedestrians and drivers) should take responsibility for their actions.
As for the idiot driving uninsured and using 2 mobiles whilst driving? Lock him up and throw away the key.
There are numerous Road Traffic Acts (1920 which resulted in the Road Fund Licence, 1930 the introduction of driving offences and a requirement for 3rd party insurance, 1934 which resulted in driving tests and a reintroduction of speed limits etc etc.)
None of these state that pedestrians do not have right of way - however, the Highway Code (which is confirmed by the various Road Traffic Acts) does indicate that pedestrians should use crossings when they are available although they do have right of way (except on motorways).
"Jaywalking" as an offence is specific to motorways and refers to the crossing of the motorway, not walking along the hard shoulder; although it is still an offence. We don't tend to use that phrase in this country. You can be can be held responsible for "blocking the highway" or more likely for causing "an obstruction" or a "public nuisance".
And for reference, I agree that the idiot that was driving uninsured whilst using phones should face the maximum penalty under the law with no reduction of sentence
"None of these state that pedestrians do not have right of way - however, the Highway Code (which is confirmed by the various Road Traffic Acts) does indicate that pedestrians should use crossings when they are available although they do have right of way (except on motorways)."
I can only find Rule 170 (formerly Rule 108) saying that pedestrians have right of way if they have begun to cross a road that you turn in to, everywhere else it basically says "be aware of pedestrians because they might walk out in front of you and if you hit them you might kill them".
I can't find anything that says they have right of way (or "priority"), so can you point at a specific rule or rules?
Or are you getting mixed up with the French adopting the "priorité piéton" (priority to pedestrians) rule on the 1st January this year?
I ask as I drive a lot and I don't usually miss a change in the law as significant as that, so I do really want to read the appropriate documents to make sure I understand them and make any necessary changes to my driving.
Ive never understood how someone can think its a good idea to text whilst driving! I mean a phone ok, it distracts your concentration but you can keep your eyes on the road the whole time, but with texting, you spend half your time looking down at the keyboard on your phone! How can anyone think thats a good idea!
The number of people you see with a phone to their ear whilst driving for whom driving is their livelihood, i.e. lorry and van drivers, suggests the law is not taken seriously by drivers or the police.
If being caught with a phone to your ear guaranteed a 1 Year+ ban perhaps would see the number of these selfish twats fall.
My boss is still not convinced that driving on the phone represents a danger. I've never received a call that was so critical it needs dealing with now rather than when I can pull in somewhere in the next couple of minutes. It is just selfishness.
As I was peacefully driving to the office this morning suddenly another Tigra driver pulled over to my lane an I nearly hit his rear end with my BMW. Stupid guy! I cut my left cheek with the razor and dropped the mobile in the coffee which was safely placed between my legs - the spilled coffee almost boiled my private parts and both the mobile and trousers are ruined! While attempting to break the fondleslab fell of my leg and slided under the mat so I couldn't check the rest of Franfurt market data. At least I kept my sandwich firmly in my right hand.
How the heck are you supposed to survive when such mindless Tigra drivers are constantly trying to kill you?!
Surely, if you are driving an illegal vehicle you will be wanting to attract as little attention as possible, but no, this fucktard, and most others of his uninsured ilk, seem to do as much as they can to get the rozzers to notice them.
Banning him is pointless. He's already happy to drive like a prat, without insurance and, possibly without tax or MOT. He'll quite likely be prepared to get behind the wheel without a licence as well.
About the only way you can prevent arses like this getting behind the wheel is to physically prevent them. Currently this is limited to jail time, but I favour a more "surgical" approach.
"And using a police radio whilst driving is... Absolutely fine apparently. Not to mention all manner of other electronic equipment that I have seen plod fiddling with"
Get a grip. The difference is NECESSITY. The Police are emergency responders - they need to able to take a call / fiddle with the buttons / drive over the limit because someone's life may depend on it. They also get a shedload more training in driving a car than Joe Muppet.
I have my own issues with the police overstepping their authority and getting away with offenses that see anyone else spending a significant stay in chokey but your comment is ludicrous.
Years ago I saw one of those small column 8 stories in my newspaper... Can't remember it verbatim now, but it was along the lines of:
"Police have been unable to trace the lady motorist, reported by several other drivers, who was using curling tongs while driving in the fast lane of the M4 yesterday morning."
Now that's scary!
Not in the same league, but I've certainly seen women applying make-up whilst driving along at some speed. I'm guessing they were also steering with their knees. They didn't see me as they'd adjusted the rear-view mirror to apply the mascara!
You can't *obtain* a tax disc without insurance for a vehicle, but that doesn't mean that the vehicle doesn't have a valid tax disc that was obtained before the insurance ran out.
The same applies to the MOT. You need a valid MOT cert to tax a vehicle over 3 years old, but it doesn't matter if that MOT expires next month.
So it is quite possible to have an uninsured vehicle with a valid tax disc
If you do something prattish whilst at least nominally in charge of a motor vehicle, the vehicle is classified as an offensive weapon. This would enable the police to charge people who drive with a mobile clamped to their ear with 'possessing an offensive weapon in apublic place' or something similar.
The main aim was so that when people try to flee and ram people or other vehicles out of the way it could be treated as assault with a deadly weapon etc. Would be much more effective than the current methods of dealing with these oh so pleasant ladies and (more often) gentlemen.
... directly to jail. Cos a ban's not going to stop a clown like this driving. He was already sticking 2 fingers up at everyone driving uninsured and the dual mobi action was his way of making sure everyone knows a free spirit like his can't be repressed by common sense or regard for his fellow man.
The uninsured car should be crushed and its owner invited for a short stay at one of Her Majesty's guest houses for the pathologically reckless and nasty.
/New icons but no muppets like wot I wanted. I has a sad.
I used to drive the whole way to work. Roundabouts and all with my knees. I used to roll joints on the way to work. 1/2 the Journey to roll, 1/2 the journey to smoke whilst holding the ash tray (fear of hot rocks on the old work trousers). Careful timing was required for the traffic lights and gear selection the utmost importance. Once you've selected, your committed.
I'm older now and no longer smoke and work in the city so i take the bus.
City driving whilst fall down drunk.. Now there’s a skill.
Using a mobile phone - 3 points
Driving without due care and attention - 3 to 9 points
Driving without insurance - 6 to 8 points
Driving without due care and attention trumps the using of a mobile phone but there should be a minimum of 9 points and a good case for 12 and a ban as the idiot doesn't deserve to be allowed on the road. (Of course, a ban isn't likely to stop him but I can dream can't I?)
To the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Paul Stephenson.
Dear Sir Paul,
Please will you do the same as Norfolk and institute a one-day clampdown on users of mobile-phones and laptops/iPads etc in London? Your conviction stats would go through the roof. And while you're at it, please can you get that truck driver who was reading a newspaper on his steering wheel last week and nearly flattened me?
Or if that's too resource-intensive, would you like to ride pillion with me (or one of your own officers) and just take a look for yourself at the proprtion of drivers using devices that take their attention away from the road? It may change your mind.
Let's assume he's a busy person (patently): it's possible his insurance had lapsed and somehow was overlooked (not legally 'innocent' but bear with me); some previous commentors read rather a lot into the uninsured statement. His driving style's admittedly lacking, however let's not jump to conclusions without the full information 'eh. If the report said he's a serial drivey-without-insurancer then I apologise.
Maybe the UK's system of insurance doesn't make it as easy as it should to keep insured? Some other countries have a much more reasonable system of (state administered?) Liability insurance. Once this (relatively) inexpensive premium is paid, it's then your choice to insure your car for theft and fire and damage privately. Perhaps a significantly cheaper statutory Liabilty only premium would encourage *some* presently uninsured drivers to comply?
As a cyclist and motorcyclist (and motorist and van owner) I'd prefer if new drivers completed a compulsory period of cycling on the roads, as a driving test prerequisite. Most poor driving habits probably stem from a disassociation with consequences and lack of empathy - that includes slowing to let people cross the road, or others out at junctions.
Mind you, it surprises me how few of the fairer sex, who I'd presumed to be more disposed towards children, appear to have empathy when I'm cycling my 2 young children to school. For example last week, within 20 yards of a crossroads on a narrow country lane, one female example of ignorance and selfishness tried to cut up / overtake (on the wrong side of the road) my bike and towed trailer containing 2 kids (I ain't no slow coach). I thought 'crikey, what an arse, that's an entirely unnecessary manouveur left super late: even if she makes it she'll have to swerve bavk over to this lane and brake hard - and I'll have to brake hard to avoid going into the back of her'. I also thought of expletives to shout when she passed (very close), but I didn't need to do anything - at that point she was within 5 yards of the tight junction, (blind to traffic turning into it) when another car turned into the lane; both had to brake hard to avoid smashing into each other as she was now effectively at the junction but on the wrong side of the road.
The look and gesticulations of the other driver said it all for me. My point is that if that lady had cycled on the road, she may have more chance of understanding how vulnerable we were and just how dangerous she was to us and others. This possibly goes back to te earlier posts about pedestrians having presumed priority on UK roads.
Got that off my chest (bank hol spare time used cathartically).
..because a c*nt was too busy texting his gf rather than watching the road. He got banned, but only after being pressured by us, the family, and a bunch of supporters. Mobile phone use whilst behind the wheel is illegal. End of. If you do it and I catch you, I will kick your driver side door.
We need less retards on the road. The more that get caught and then let off, they will keep doing it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019