VIDEO: The "gross stupidity" of drivers on Bournemouth's busiest road

VIDEO: The

VIDEO: The "gross stupidity" of drivers on Bournemouth's busiest road

First published in News
Last updated
by

A TOP traffic cop has slammed the “gross stupidity” of these motorists caught driving dangerously on some of our busiest roads.

See all our pictures in the gallery

Bournemouth Echo: Image from PictureGalleryModule_ID:3168849

They were snapped travelling northbound on the A338 Wessex Way talking on their mobile phones, reading maps, removing a jacket and even taking both hands off the steering wheel to light a cigarette.

Follow our live blog as we snap drivers on the Wessex Way this morning - we've snapped six people using their mobile phones already.

Our photographer caught countless motorists flouting the law - all in free-flowing traffic - and Inspector John Mallace of Dorset Police's road traffic unit says behaviour like this puts lives at risk.

He said: “As people drive around the county you will see people not paying attention to their driving.

Bournemouth Echo: Image from PictureGalleryModule_ID:3168849

When you are using something that is distracting you from driving like a mobile phone or reading a map or reading directions or taking your jacket off - that puts yourself in significant danger of death or serious injury but also puts the rest of the public in danger as a result of your gross stupidity.”

Insp Mallace was also shocked to see pictures of a young child travelling in an 'L' plated car standing up unrestrained.

The picture was taken at lunchtime at Cemetery junction in Bournemouth.

The officer said: “The law states that a child should be restrained in the rear of the vehicle.

“If it was involved in a crash, the child or person in the back of the vehicle in effect becomes a missile and they would be launched either into the back of the head of the person in front or through the windscreen and generally that would result in fatal injuries.”

He said such a scenario could lead to the driver being charged with death by dangerous driving or death by careless driving.

“We all would naturally love to protect children and that's what the law is designed for,” he said.

Bournemouth Echo: Image from PictureGalleryModule_ID:3168849

“I have been at crashes with kids in a properly-fitted child seat and if it wasn't for that child seat, the child would be dead.”

Insp Mallace said the images showed truckers driving without due care and attention.

“On the whole 99 per cent of lorry drivers are very good and very competent.

“They are in charge of 42 tonnes of vehicle. If you are in charge of such a large vehicle it only takes a momentary glitch and that thing is careering through lines of traffic.”

Speaking about drivers on their mobile phones, Insp Mallace said: “We all know it's a bad thing to do, we all know it's dangerous so why do it?

Bournemouth Echo: Image from PictureGalleryModule_ID:3168849

“It really isn't worth the potential consequences that I and my colleagues deal with on a daily basis.”

He said the No Excuse campaign, which involves a combination of enforcement and education, has been successful in reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on Dorset's roads.

“We have statistically some of the most dangerous roads in the country because we have a windy road network which people don't drive appropriately on.”

He said the majority of fatal accidents in Dorset are due to driver error.

Bournemouth council's cabinet member for transportation Michael Filer was “absolutely horrified” by the images.

He said: “I hope the photographs can be handed over to the police because these drivers are not just jeopardising themselves, they are putting other motorists at risk. Their senseless actions could be lethal and a law-abiding motorist could lose their life because of their stupidity.”

Dorset Police have requested a copy of our photographs and will be writing to the offending drivers and, where necessary, their employers.

Kathy Tilbury Managing Director of Bournemouth-based Excelsior Coaches, said: “As a  business our drivers go through very vigorous on-going assessments and training, and we have impeccable safety record our fleet has safety equipment monitoring the drivers performance every time they take to the wheel.

“We also work very closely with a charity that prompts safe driving to under-17 drivers training them in road safety.

“As a result of this allegation we have launched an investigation into this picture shown in the Echo on Friday, April 12, and will take any necessary action that we deem appropriate.”

What we saw

The antics our photographer witnessed on the A338 Wessex Way in just 1hr and 45min:

  • An Excelsior coach driver cleaning his glasses on the dual carriageway. Click to see
  • A Toyota driver taking both hands off the wheel to light her cigarette Click to see
  • A white van driver reading his paperwork in the outside lane Click to see
  • A recovery truck driver on the phone while behind the wheel 
  • A Ford Focus driver with two dogs and a child on the passenger seat Click to see
  • Numerous van and car drivers using their mobile phones
  • On the fast lane of the Wessex Way a woman was spotted removing her jacket after overtaking in her grey Land Rover Click to see
  • An Iceland delivery man caught holding a disposable cup Click to see
  • Motorist reading as he drove his white Skoda Click to see
  • A white van driver eating crisps with both hands off the wheel Click to see
  • Scania lorry driver on the phone behind the wheel Click to see
  • Truck driver studying a map Click to see

Comments (124)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:20am Fri 12 Apr 13

The Liberal says...

The problem with these photos is that there's no way of telling how fast they're going. They might have been stuck in a traffic jam for all we know.
The problem with these photos is that there's no way of telling how fast they're going. They might have been stuck in a traffic jam for all we know. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

8:35am Fri 12 Apr 13

djd says...

It's frightening when you think you could stand by the side of any road and take much the same photos of drivers committing the same acts of gross incompetency.
Fair play to The Echo but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Drivers will continue to flout the law until there is a deterrent not to do so.
I hope the companies concerned educate their drivers of the standards expected on the road.
It's frightening when you think you could stand by the side of any road and take much the same photos of drivers committing the same acts of gross incompetency. Fair play to The Echo but this is just the tip of the iceberg. Drivers will continue to flout the law until there is a deterrent not to do so. I hope the companies concerned educate their drivers of the standards expected on the road. djd
  • Score: 0

8:35am Fri 12 Apr 13

Controversial But True says...

The Liberal wrote:
The problem with these photos is that there's no way of telling how fast they're going. They might have been stuck in a traffic jam for all we know.
Possible, however it's still illegal to even hold your phone when stationary if the engine is running!!
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: The problem with these photos is that there's no way of telling how fast they're going. They might have been stuck in a traffic jam for all we know.[/p][/quote]Possible, however it's still illegal to even hold your phone when stationary if the engine is running!! Controversial But True
  • Score: 0

8:39am Fri 12 Apr 13

aerolover says...

Make you wonder why more people didn't die in the 60's when you didn't have to wear a seat belt and everyone ate while driving.
I agree with not being on the phone while driving but have something to eat or drink as long as you are thinking what you are doing is no big crime.
The next thing will be no music or opening the windows while driving. Perhaps we should stop everyone driving that would cut road deaths.
Make you wonder why more people didn't die in the 60's when you didn't have to wear a seat belt and everyone ate while driving. I agree with not being on the phone while driving but have something to eat or drink as long as you are thinking what you are doing is no big crime. The next thing will be no music or opening the windows while driving. Perhaps we should stop everyone driving that would cut road deaths. aerolover
  • Score: 0

8:41am Fri 12 Apr 13

pinoso318 says...

Brilliant. Please keep up this name and shame.
Brilliant. Please keep up this name and shame. pinoso318
  • Score: 0

8:48am Fri 12 Apr 13

bourne free says...

pinoso318 wrote:
Brilliant. Please keep up this name and shame.
Spot on
Name and shame
Put the real low lifes on the billboards !
[quote][p][bold]pinoso318[/bold] wrote: Brilliant. Please keep up this name and shame.[/p][/quote]Spot on Name and shame Put the real low lifes on the billboards ! bourne free
  • Score: 0

8:59am Fri 12 Apr 13

retry69 says...

There we have it my fellow motorist the proof that a lot of you have been asking for.NO MENTION of boy racers,Audi,Bmw or Mercedes drivers who regularly get stick in the comments section and fingers pointing.The possible risk of injury or worse is from some of the more so called experienced family saloon owners and and people who drive for a living,its time to look at our failings and as i am just about to leave to go up the A338/M27/M3 i might see for myself.Have a good and safe day!
There we have it my fellow motorist the proof that a lot of you have been asking for.NO MENTION of boy racers,Audi,Bmw or Mercedes drivers who regularly get stick in the comments section and fingers pointing.The possible risk of injury or worse is from some of the more so called experienced family saloon owners and and people who drive for a living,its time to look at our failings and as i am just about to leave to go up the A338/M27/M3 i might see for myself.Have a good and safe day! retry69
  • Score: 0

9:07am Fri 12 Apr 13

Omni314 says...

I hope the original photos have the number plates and you are forwarding them to the police and the employers (where appropriate)
I hope the original photos have the number plates and you are forwarding them to the police and the employers (where appropriate) Omni314
  • Score: 0

9:10am Fri 12 Apr 13

Por Speller says...

bourne free wrote:
pinoso318 wrote:
Brilliant. Please keep up this name and shame.
Spot on
Name and shame
Put the real low lifes on the billboards !
Agreed- excellent work Echo- you could have a Hall of Shame section on the website. These people are ignorant menaces who should be forced to retake their theory and practical driving tests.
[quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pinoso318[/bold] wrote: Brilliant. Please keep up this name and shame.[/p][/quote]Spot on Name and shame Put the real low lifes on the billboards ![/p][/quote]Agreed- excellent work Echo- you could have a Hall of Shame section on the website. These people are ignorant menaces who should be forced to retake their theory and practical driving tests. Por Speller
  • Score: 0

9:22am Fri 12 Apr 13

Derf says...

What's a fast lane?
What's a fast lane? Derf
  • Score: 0

9:35am Fri 12 Apr 13

TheRandom says...

What ever happened to car phones? I'm not old enough to have had one in a car before but my dad had one in his old volvo.



I want one of these in my car. Too much road noise usually for hands free unless you have an expensive BMW or Merc etc. Think some GPS units are just as bad as phones now too.
What ever happened to car phones? I'm not old enough to have had one in a car before but my dad had one in his old volvo. I want one of these in my car. Too much road noise usually for hands free unless you have an expensive BMW or Merc etc. Think some GPS units are just as bad as phones now too. TheRandom
  • Score: 0

9:37am Fri 12 Apr 13

TheRandom says...

http://casepops.com/
blog/wp-content/uplo
ads/2012/09/CarPhone
.jpg

Car phone pic
http://casepops.com/ blog/wp-content/uplo ads/2012/09/CarPhone .jpg Car phone pic TheRandom
  • Score: 0

9:39am Fri 12 Apr 13

Chickenegg says...

I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police.
I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.
I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police. I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals. Chickenegg
  • Score: 0

9:45am Fri 12 Apr 13

bisadave says...

"An Iceland delivery man caught holding a disposable cup"

Really?

Maybe all Costas and Starbucks at the motorway serviuces should be closed down and car manufacturers fined for including cupholders
"An Iceland delivery man caught holding a disposable cup" Really? Maybe all Costas and Starbucks at the motorway serviuces should be closed down and car manufacturers fined for including cupholders bisadave
  • Score: 0

9:55am Fri 12 Apr 13

retry69 says...

Chickenegg wrote:
I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police.
I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.
Clutching at straws spring to mind and again may i point out that the word "accident" no longer applies to incidents that involve motorists for a very good reason,99.9% of these incidents are due to driver error
[quote][p][bold]Chickenegg[/bold] wrote: I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police. I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.[/p][/quote]Clutching at straws spring to mind and again may i point out that the word "accident" no longer applies to incidents that involve motorists for a very good reason,99.9% of these incidents are due to driver error retry69
  • Score: 0

9:55am Fri 12 Apr 13

PokesdownMark says...

Obviously there are a range of issues here. Holding a cup seems fine. Unless its hot coffee and gets spilt!

Shame on the professional drivers using hand held mobiles. Hands free kits cost very little. It is something for the HSE to wade into with their very heaviest of boots!
Obviously there are a range of issues here. Holding a cup seems fine. Unless its hot coffee and gets spilt! Shame on the professional drivers using hand held mobiles. Hands free kits cost very little. It is something for the HSE to wade into with their very heaviest of boots! PokesdownMark
  • Score: 0

10:02am Fri 12 Apr 13

The Liberal says...

Controversial But True wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
The problem with these photos is that there's no way of telling how fast they're going. They might have been stuck in a traffic jam for all we know.
Possible, however it's still illegal to even hold your phone when stationary if the engine is running!!
I was thinking more of the guy cleaning his glasses, for example. He could well have been stationary in traffic for all we know. I sometimes clean mine when stopped at traffic lights.
[quote][p][bold]Controversial But True[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: The problem with these photos is that there's no way of telling how fast they're going. They might have been stuck in a traffic jam for all we know.[/p][/quote]Possible, however it's still illegal to even hold your phone when stationary if the engine is running!![/p][/quote]I was thinking more of the guy cleaning his glasses, for example. He could well have been stationary in traffic for all we know. I sometimes clean mine when stopped at traffic lights. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

10:05am Fri 12 Apr 13

Chickenegg says...

No straw clutching- that would involve taking a hand off the wheel lol!! And yes, I agree "incidents" are caused by driver error and there are unfortunately many under confident, hesitant, non observant drivers out there that make these errors. I would like to see drivers who are just capable of getting in the right lane at a roundabout as a start! Perhaps compulsory refresher courses for the more mature driver might help? What I'm trying to say is there seems to be a bandwagon being jumped on here and there are just so many other reasons for accidents (sorry-"incidents"!!
) that should be considered and let's not just penalise the crisp eaters here!! Soon we won't be allowed to change gear!!
No straw clutching- that would involve taking a hand off the wheel lol!! And yes, I agree "incidents" are caused by driver error and there are unfortunately many under confident, hesitant, non observant drivers out there that make these errors. I would like to see drivers who are just capable of getting in the right lane at a roundabout as a start! Perhaps compulsory refresher courses for the more mature driver might help? What I'm trying to say is there seems to be a bandwagon being jumped on here and there are just so many other reasons for accidents (sorry-"incidents"!! ) that should be considered and let's not just penalise the crisp eaters here!! Soon we won't be allowed to change gear!! Chickenegg
  • Score: 0

10:13am Fri 12 Apr 13

retry69 says...

Chickenegg wrote:
No straw clutching- that would involve taking a hand off the wheel lol!! And yes, I agree "incidents" are caused by driver error and there are unfortunately many under confident, hesitant, non observant drivers out there that make these errors. I would like to see drivers who are just capable of getting in the right lane at a roundabout as a start! Perhaps compulsory refresher courses for the more mature driver might help? What I'm trying to say is there seems to be a bandwagon being jumped on here and there are just so many other reasons for accidents (sorry-"incidents"!!

) that should be considered and let's not just penalise the crisp eaters here!! Soon we won't be allowed to change gear!!
yes yes yes as regular critics of mine will know i believe re-tests for the over 50s is needed badly to remind them os the basics of driving which sadly have been forgotten.You will not eradicate the die hard law/regulation breakers but i feel exposure like this can only have good positive results in highlighting our failures but for some reason questioning our own driving abiities angers some people
[quote][p][bold]Chickenegg[/bold] wrote: No straw clutching- that would involve taking a hand off the wheel lol!! And yes, I agree "incidents" are caused by driver error and there are unfortunately many under confident, hesitant, non observant drivers out there that make these errors. I would like to see drivers who are just capable of getting in the right lane at a roundabout as a start! Perhaps compulsory refresher courses for the more mature driver might help? What I'm trying to say is there seems to be a bandwagon being jumped on here and there are just so many other reasons for accidents (sorry-"incidents"!! ) that should be considered and let's not just penalise the crisp eaters here!! Soon we won't be allowed to change gear!![/p][/quote]yes yes yes as regular critics of mine will know i believe re-tests for the over 50s is needed badly to remind them os the basics of driving which sadly have been forgotten.You will not eradicate the die hard law/regulation breakers but i feel exposure like this can only have good positive results in highlighting our failures but for some reason questioning our own driving abiities angers some people retry69
  • Score: 0

10:13am Fri 12 Apr 13

l'anglais says...

aerolover wrote:
Make you wonder why more people didn't die in the 60's when you didn't have to wear a seat belt and everyone ate while driving.
I agree with not being on the phone while driving but have something to eat or drink as long as you are thinking what you are doing is no big crime.
The next thing will be no music or opening the windows while driving. Perhaps we should stop everyone driving that would cut road deaths.
People did die in the 60's.
How can you maintain complete concentration if you are eating, drinking or picking your nose.

People should stop driving, if they don't get behind a steering wheel to just drive within the law.
[quote][p][bold]aerolover[/bold] wrote: Make you wonder why more people didn't die in the 60's when you didn't have to wear a seat belt and everyone ate while driving. I agree with not being on the phone while driving but have something to eat or drink as long as you are thinking what you are doing is no big crime. The next thing will be no music or opening the windows while driving. Perhaps we should stop everyone driving that would cut road deaths.[/p][/quote]People did die in the 60's. How can you maintain complete concentration if you are eating, drinking or picking your nose. People should stop driving, if they don't get behind a steering wheel to just drive within the law. l'anglais
  • Score: 0

10:16am Fri 12 Apr 13

SensibleChap says...

Nice job Echo!

I am particularly pleased that you decided to use your photograpers as pseudo police officers for the day.

Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling going out and helping the police do their job?

I always thought it was the job of the press to report the news and not to create the news by capturing its readership committing minor legal transgressions.

If this is the way the Echo is going then I think we should all be worried.

I am particularly looking forward to the Echo running the story "OUTRAGEOUS: The shame of those who manipulate Pick n Mix!!"

This is journalism at its very worst.
Nice job Echo! I am particularly pleased that you decided to use your photograpers as pseudo police officers for the day. Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling going out and helping the police do their job? I always thought it was the job of the press to report the news and not to create the news by capturing its readership committing minor legal transgressions. If this is the way the Echo is going then I think we should all be worried. I am particularly looking forward to the Echo running the story "OUTRAGEOUS: The shame of those who manipulate Pick n Mix!!" This is journalism at its very worst. SensibleChap
  • Score: 0

10:16am Fri 12 Apr 13

speedy231278 says...

Is it actually good practice for the Echo to be publishing photographs where people and their registration plates are clearly identifiable? Apart from the obvious cases of using phones and reading stuff behind the wheel, which are both illegal/highly distracting, unless they can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the motorist is committing an offence, I would offer that the paper itself is committing an offence against the motorists it is implying are driving dangerously. As a previous post has asked - when it is considered by some to be dangerous to take your hand off the wheel, when will manual gearboxes be outlawed?
Is it actually good practice for the Echo to be publishing photographs where people and their registration plates are clearly identifiable? Apart from the obvious cases of using phones and reading stuff behind the wheel, which are both illegal/highly distracting, unless they can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the motorist is committing an offence, I would offer that the paper itself is committing an offence against the motorists it is implying are driving dangerously. As a previous post has asked - when it is considered by some to be dangerous to take your hand off the wheel, when will manual gearboxes be outlawed? speedy231278
  • Score: 0

10:17am Fri 12 Apr 13

timwel says...

Around Southampton it's a very few of the drivers with both hands on the wheel that terrify me...they tailgate, join the motorway and go to lane 3 in about 50m, they twitch between lanes pointlessly and, my favourite, is cutting across 3 lanes of packed traffic to make the exit lane...so we need shame video's of them as well. Its never occurred to them their diving is dangerous to others.....so tell me you are surprised there is an accident every day here?
Around Southampton it's a very few of the drivers with both hands on the wheel that terrify me...they tailgate, join the motorway and go to lane 3 in about 50m, they twitch between lanes pointlessly and, my favourite, is cutting across 3 lanes of packed traffic to make the exit lane...so we need shame video's of them as well. Its never occurred to them their diving is dangerous to others.....so tell me you are surprised there is an accident every day here? timwel
  • Score: 0

10:20am Fri 12 Apr 13

bournemouthsimon says...

I'm very pleased to see the police are taking action on these issues, but the people saying how bad it is in your comments are the same people who want the speed limit raised from 40 back to 50 on the wessex way if drivers can't behave on these issues the speed limit should be reduced even further to 30 yours simon
I'm very pleased to see the police are taking action on these issues, but the people saying how bad it is in your comments are the same people who want the speed limit raised from 40 back to 50 on the wessex way if drivers can't behave on these issues the speed limit should be reduced even further to 30 yours simon bournemouthsimon
  • Score: 0

10:29am Fri 12 Apr 13

SensibleChap says...

bournemouthsimon wrote:
I'm very pleased to see the police are taking action on these issues, but the people saying how bad it is in your comments are the same people who want the speed limit raised from 40 back to 50 on the wessex way if drivers can't behave on these issues the speed limit should be reduced even further to 30 yours simon
If you like we could go back to the days of a man walking in front of cars holding a flag?

Motoring rules are regressive rather than progressive and its folk like you that are unhelpful to debate.
[quote][p][bold]bournemouthsimon[/bold] wrote: I'm very pleased to see the police are taking action on these issues, but the people saying how bad it is in your comments are the same people who want the speed limit raised from 40 back to 50 on the wessex way if drivers can't behave on these issues the speed limit should be reduced even further to 30 yours simon[/p][/quote]If you like we could go back to the days of a man walking in front of cars holding a flag? Motoring rules are regressive rather than progressive and its folk like you that are unhelpful to debate. SensibleChap
  • Score: 0

10:33am Fri 12 Apr 13

stone dweller says...

The elderly guy in the video was shocked horrified frightened
found it repugnant blatant
I mean to say he's portfolio holder for transportation, whatever that is,
Where has he been hiding if he did not know that this happened all the time every minute of the day
he sounds the same ilk as the geezer who did not secure the car he was driving, paid for by us, and had a nav sat nicked that we pay for,
what a pair of tools.
The elderly guy in the video was shocked horrified frightened found it repugnant blatant I mean to say he's portfolio holder for transportation, whatever that is, Where has he been hiding if he did not know that this happened all the time every minute of the day he sounds the same ilk as the geezer who did not secure the car he was driving, paid for by us, and had a nav sat nicked that we pay for, what a pair of tools. stone dweller
  • Score: 0

10:35am Fri 12 Apr 13

Bonkeydollocks says...

bisadave wrote:
"An Iceland delivery man caught holding a disposable cup"

Really?

Maybe all Costas and Starbucks at the motorway serviuces should be closed down and car manufacturers fined for including cupholders
Yes, a ridiculous statement by the Echo. Whats so dangerous about holding a disposable cup or a bag of crisps???

Yet it is perfectly OK to smoke, holding a lit cigarette that if accidentally dropped would cause a significant distraction and danger, particularly if into the lap of the driver!!

But please, a disposable cup or packet of crisps? How on earth did we all survive back in the days before this ridiculous nanny state.
[quote][p][bold]bisadave[/bold] wrote: "An Iceland delivery man caught holding a disposable cup" Really? Maybe all Costas and Starbucks at the motorway serviuces should be closed down and car manufacturers fined for including cupholders[/p][/quote]Yes, a ridiculous statement by the Echo. Whats so dangerous about holding a disposable cup or a bag of crisps??? Yet it is perfectly OK to smoke, holding a lit cigarette that if accidentally dropped would cause a significant distraction and danger, particularly if into the lap of the driver!! But please, a disposable cup or packet of crisps? How on earth did we all survive back in the days before this ridiculous nanny state. Bonkeydollocks
  • Score: 0

10:41am Fri 12 Apr 13

Mrspud28 says...

I often break the law with my trusty tin of boiled sweets.
I often break the law with my trusty tin of boiled sweets. Mrspud28
  • Score: 0

10:44am Fri 12 Apr 13

bisadave says...

Bonkeydollocks wrote:
bisadave wrote:
"An Iceland delivery man caught holding a disposable cup"

Really?

Maybe all Costas and Starbucks at the motorway serviuces should be closed down and car manufacturers fined for including cupholders
Yes, a ridiculous statement by the Echo. Whats so dangerous about holding a disposable cup or a bag of crisps???

Yet it is perfectly OK to smoke, holding a lit cigarette that if accidentally dropped would cause a significant distraction and danger, particularly if into the lap of the driver!!

But please, a disposable cup or packet of crisps? How on earth did we all survive back in the days before this ridiculous nanny state.
Spot on.

I'm guessing all the pictures of smokers will follow later? Thought not.

And lets hope no-one was distracted by a person on a bridge pointing a camera at them.
[quote][p][bold]Bonkeydollocks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bisadave[/bold] wrote: "An Iceland delivery man caught holding a disposable cup" Really? Maybe all Costas and Starbucks at the motorway serviuces should be closed down and car manufacturers fined for including cupholders[/p][/quote]Yes, a ridiculous statement by the Echo. Whats so dangerous about holding a disposable cup or a bag of crisps??? Yet it is perfectly OK to smoke, holding a lit cigarette that if accidentally dropped would cause a significant distraction and danger, particularly if into the lap of the driver!! But please, a disposable cup or packet of crisps? How on earth did we all survive back in the days before this ridiculous nanny state.[/p][/quote]Spot on. I'm guessing all the pictures of smokers will follow later? Thought not. And lets hope no-one was distracted by a person on a bridge pointing a camera at them. bisadave
  • Score: 0

10:55am Fri 12 Apr 13

pauls55 says...

This has to be looked at in context and with a degree of common sense by the authorities and the Echo. Mobiles to the ear and distractions like map reading, sure they're a definite no, no and illegal. But surely the odd slurp of your drink with one hand, as long as the road is clear, is hardly a flogging offence and arguably even helps maintain your concentration.
This has to be looked at in context and with a degree of common sense by the authorities and the Echo. Mobiles to the ear and distractions like map reading, sure they're a definite no, no and illegal. But surely the odd slurp of your drink with one hand, as long as the road is clear, is hardly a flogging offence and arguably even helps maintain your concentration. pauls55
  • Score: 0

11:00am Fri 12 Apr 13

Chickenegg says...

Oh hooray- there are some common sense wielding folk out there who have a life and don't want crisp persecution officers monitoring our roads! As I'm sure we all do, I take driving and its possible fatal consequences very seriously but think the echo have missed the point a little (and, yes, possibly broken privacy rights??!!). Smoking whilst driving is a disaster waiting to happen. My personal pet hate is the often seen mum smoking in the drivers seat whilst her baby or toddler occupies a baby seat directly behind her. It's madness that this is still legal!! All that's needed is a little common sense and consideration from drivers and not nit picking. Oh, and yes the constant lane swappers need to go!! Read the signs, get in the right lane (in advance) and stay there!! Anyone else find this a major issue just past tesco on castle lane??!! Ggggrrr!!
Oh hooray- there are some common sense wielding folk out there who have a life and don't want crisp persecution officers monitoring our roads! As I'm sure we all do, I take driving and its possible fatal consequences very seriously but think the echo have missed the point a little (and, yes, possibly broken privacy rights??!!). Smoking whilst driving is a disaster waiting to happen. My personal pet hate is the often seen mum smoking in the drivers seat whilst her baby or toddler occupies a baby seat directly behind her. It's madness that this is still legal!! All that's needed is a little common sense and consideration from drivers and not nit picking. Oh, and yes the constant lane swappers need to go!! Read the signs, get in the right lane (in advance) and stay there!! Anyone else find this a major issue just past tesco on castle lane??!! Ggggrrr!! Chickenegg
  • Score: 0

11:45am Fri 12 Apr 13

bourne free says...

Now we are moving into p-key park on any spare field / verge time , will the Echo have the balls to put those pics up and open the comments column ?
Now we are moving into p-key park on any spare field / verge time , will the Echo have the balls to put those pics up and open the comments column ? bourne free
  • Score: 0

11:51am Fri 12 Apr 13

Sam Shepherd says...

bisadave wrote:
Bonkeydollocks wrote:
bisadave wrote:
"An Iceland delivery man caught holding a disposable cup"

Really?

Maybe all Costas and Starbucks at the motorway serviuces should be closed down and car manufacturers fined for including cupholders
Yes, a ridiculous statement by the Echo. Whats so dangerous about holding a disposable cup or a bag of crisps???

Yet it is perfectly OK to smoke, holding a lit cigarette that if accidentally dropped would cause a significant distraction and danger, particularly if into the lap of the driver!!

But please, a disposable cup or packet of crisps? How on earth did we all survive back in the days before this ridiculous nanny state.
Spot on.

I'm guessing all the pictures of smokers will follow later? Thought not.

And lets hope no-one was distracted by a person on a bridge pointing a camera at them.
Just a note - there's a picture of a smoker in the gallery and another of a driver rolling a cigarette on the blog.

Both can constitute careless (illegal) driving - as can eating and drinking under the terms of the law.
[quote][p][bold]bisadave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bonkeydollocks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bisadave[/bold] wrote: "An Iceland delivery man caught holding a disposable cup" Really? Maybe all Costas and Starbucks at the motorway serviuces should be closed down and car manufacturers fined for including cupholders[/p][/quote]Yes, a ridiculous statement by the Echo. Whats so dangerous about holding a disposable cup or a bag of crisps??? Yet it is perfectly OK to smoke, holding a lit cigarette that if accidentally dropped would cause a significant distraction and danger, particularly if into the lap of the driver!! But please, a disposable cup or packet of crisps? How on earth did we all survive back in the days before this ridiculous nanny state.[/p][/quote]Spot on. I'm guessing all the pictures of smokers will follow later? Thought not. And lets hope no-one was distracted by a person on a bridge pointing a camera at them.[/p][/quote]Just a note - there's a picture of a smoker in the gallery and another of a driver rolling a cigarette on the blog. Both can constitute careless (illegal) driving - as can eating and drinking under the terms of the law. Sam Shepherd
  • Score: 0

12:01pm Fri 12 Apr 13

stone dweller says...

Read the signs, get in the right lane (in advance) and stay there!!


Are you raving mad right lane
its for over taking, unless you live where Hitler comes from.
Read the signs, get in the right lane (in advance) and stay there!! Are you raving mad right lane its for over taking, unless you live where Hitler comes from. stone dweller
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Fri 12 Apr 13

lilacfloyd says...

Chickenegg wrote:
Oh hooray- there are some common sense wielding folk out there who have a life and don't want crisp persecution officers monitoring our roads! As I'm sure we all do, I take driving and its possible fatal consequences very seriously but think the echo have missed the point a little (and, yes, possibly broken privacy rights??!!). Smoking whilst driving is a disaster waiting to happen. My personal pet hate is the often seen mum smoking in the drivers seat whilst her baby or toddler occupies a baby seat directly behind her. It's madness that this is still legal!! All that's needed is a little common sense and consideration from drivers and not nit picking. Oh, and yes the constant lane swappers need to go!! Read the signs, get in the right lane (in advance) and stay there!! Anyone else find this a major issue just past tesco on castle lane??!! Ggggrrr!!
Editors' Code of Practice

Privacy

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.

Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
[quote][p][bold]Chickenegg[/bold] wrote: Oh hooray- there are some common sense wielding folk out there who have a life and don't want crisp persecution officers monitoring our roads! As I'm sure we all do, I take driving and its possible fatal consequences very seriously but think the echo have missed the point a little (and, yes, possibly broken privacy rights??!!). Smoking whilst driving is a disaster waiting to happen. My personal pet hate is the often seen mum smoking in the drivers seat whilst her baby or toddler occupies a baby seat directly behind her. It's madness that this is still legal!! All that's needed is a little common sense and consideration from drivers and not nit picking. Oh, and yes the constant lane swappers need to go!! Read the signs, get in the right lane (in advance) and stay there!! Anyone else find this a major issue just past tesco on castle lane??!! Ggggrrr!![/p][/quote]Editors' Code of Practice Privacy i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information. iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent. Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. lilacfloyd
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Fri 12 Apr 13

dribydal says...

I hope theese pictures have also captured the number plates and are going to be passed onto the police - this is madness.
You should see the drivers on Herbert Avenue in the mornings - this morning a young woman was driving a small dark hatchback (Corsa?) and was actually eating a bowl of cereal while driving - bowl in one hand and spoon in the other.
I hope theese pictures have also captured the number plates and are going to be passed onto the police - this is madness. You should see the drivers on Herbert Avenue in the mornings - this morning a young woman was driving a small dark hatchback (Corsa?) and was actually eating a bowl of cereal while driving - bowl in one hand and spoon in the other. dribydal
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Lord Spring says...

Derf wrote:
What's a fast lane?
Asda has one as they thank me using the fast lane.
[quote][p][bold]Derf[/bold] wrote: What's a fast lane?[/p][/quote]Asda has one as they thank me using the fast lane. Lord Spring
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Fri 12 Apr 13

dailymailreader says...

What a fuss over nothing - I can drive quite safely whilst chatting, texting or checking twitter.
What a fuss over nothing - I can drive quite safely whilst chatting, texting or checking twitter. dailymailreader
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Fri 12 Apr 13

alanrr says...

blimey I take my hand of the wheel all the time .......when I change gear.....
blimey I take my hand of the wheel all the time .......when I change gear..... alanrr
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Fri 12 Apr 13

BourneRiver says...

dailymailreader wrote:
What a fuss over nothing - I can drive quite safely whilst chatting, texting or checking twitter.
or adding comments to a local papers website.......
[quote][p][bold]dailymailreader[/bold] wrote: What a fuss over nothing - I can drive quite safely whilst chatting, texting or checking twitter.[/p][/quote]or adding comments to a local papers website....... BourneRiver
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Ciaran says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Is it actually good practice for the Echo to be publishing photographs where people and their registration plates are clearly identifiable? Apart from the obvious cases of using phones and reading stuff behind the wheel, which are both illegal/highly distracting, unless they can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the motorist is committing an offence, I would offer that the paper itself is committing an offence against the motorists it is implying are driving dangerously. As a previous post has asked - when it is considered by some to be dangerous to take your hand off the wheel, when will manual gearboxes be outlawed?
Yeah because no-one can see your registration plate and face when you're out driving...

If you think the paper has done anything wrong, report it to the police.

Go on. Put your money where your mouth is.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Is it actually good practice for the Echo to be publishing photographs where people and their registration plates are clearly identifiable? Apart from the obvious cases of using phones and reading stuff behind the wheel, which are both illegal/highly distracting, unless they can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the motorist is committing an offence, I would offer that the paper itself is committing an offence against the motorists it is implying are driving dangerously. As a previous post has asked - when it is considered by some to be dangerous to take your hand off the wheel, when will manual gearboxes be outlawed?[/p][/quote]Yeah because no-one can see your registration plate and face when you're out driving... If you think the paper has done anything wrong, report it to the police. Go on. Put your money where your mouth is. Ciaran
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Ciaran says...

alanrr wrote:
blimey I take my hand of the wheel all the time .......when I change gear.....
Seeing as that's part of the operation of the vehicle it's legally fine.

'Clever' pedantry is seldom anything but.
[quote][p][bold]alanrr[/bold] wrote: blimey I take my hand of the wheel all the time .......when I change gear.....[/p][/quote]Seeing as that's part of the operation of the vehicle it's legally fine. 'Clever' pedantry is seldom anything but. Ciaran
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Pablo23 says...

aerolover wrote:
Make you wonder why more people didn't die in the 60's when you didn't have to wear a seat belt and everyone ate while driving.
I agree with not being on the phone while driving but have something to eat or drink as long as you are thinking what you are doing is no big crime.
The next thing will be no music or opening the windows while driving. Perhaps we should stop everyone driving that would cut road deaths.
In the 60's the top speed of most cars was about 34mph and it took about 20min to reach that speed.
Also there were far fewer cars on the road then.

Roads are a lot more dangerous now with the power of quantity of modern cars, hence the need for seat belts, air bags, dog pouches etc
[quote][p][bold]aerolover[/bold] wrote: Make you wonder why more people didn't die in the 60's when you didn't have to wear a seat belt and everyone ate while driving. I agree with not being on the phone while driving but have something to eat or drink as long as you are thinking what you are doing is no big crime. The next thing will be no music or opening the windows while driving. Perhaps we should stop everyone driving that would cut road deaths.[/p][/quote]In the 60's the top speed of most cars was about 34mph and it took about 20min to reach that speed. Also there were far fewer cars on the road then. Roads are a lot more dangerous now with the power of quantity of modern cars, hence the need for seat belts, air bags, dog pouches etc Pablo23
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Dorset Logic says...

Is getting outraged and wanting to put everyone in prison something that comes with age?
Is getting outraged and wanting to put everyone in prison something that comes with age? Dorset Logic
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Fri 12 Apr 13

kingstonpaul says...

Leaving aside the appalling driving behaviour shown in these photos, this is a worrying escalation of the wretched and pervasive surveillance culture we all live under.
There are thousands every day committing these offences, so it's unfair that a small sample should should be paraded in public. A quiet word with offenders, rather than public humiliation might have sufficed.
Leaving aside the appalling driving behaviour shown in these photos, this is a worrying escalation of the wretched and pervasive surveillance culture we all live under. There are thousands every day committing these offences, so it's unfair that a small sample should should be paraded in public. A quiet word with offenders, rather than public humiliation might have sufficed. kingstonpaul
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Fri 12 Apr 13

KKen96 says...

I have a confession to make. Yesterday whilst driving at over 60mph, I took one hand off the wheel to adjust the temperature. I'm really sorry, I was hot and my hand was only off the wheel for a few seconds but I realise that is no excuse. Obviously I should have both hands glued to the wheel from the moment the engine has started until I reach my destination and a trained mechanic has certified that my vehicle is no longer running.

Or, alternatively, we could differentiate between the real hazards on the road and the Echo victimising innocent people who are in many cases not breaking any laws.

Sure, tackle drink drivers, driving while under the influence of drugs, excessive speeding in urban areas, etc. The stuff that causes accidents and deaths. But taking a photo of a man eating some crisps? Really?
I have a confession to make. Yesterday whilst driving at over 60mph, I took one hand off the wheel to adjust the temperature. I'm really sorry, I was hot and my hand was only off the wheel for a few seconds but I realise that is no excuse. Obviously I should have both hands glued to the wheel from the moment the engine has started until I reach my destination and a trained mechanic has certified that my vehicle is no longer running. Or, alternatively, we could differentiate between the real hazards on the road and the Echo victimising innocent people who are in many cases not breaking any laws. Sure, tackle drink drivers, driving while under the influence of drugs, excessive speeding in urban areas, etc. The stuff that causes accidents and deaths. But taking a photo of a man eating some crisps? Really? KKen96
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Teddy 1 says...

As another poster said above, it all now seems to be about catching people and not educating BEFORE the commit an offence. education after they commit the offence is slightly unfair and open to interpretation of financial gain.

Gentle reminders through education surely is the answer to keep people on side which is what they say the police need?
As another poster said above, it all now seems to be about catching people and not educating BEFORE the commit an offence. education after they commit the offence is slightly unfair and open to interpretation of financial gain. Gentle reminders through education surely is the answer to keep people on side which is what they say the police need? Teddy 1
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Fri 12 Apr 13

static kill says...

The reason most modern cars have height adjustable steering wheels is so they can be put in just the right position to safely be operated with the knees. I agree that rolling a splff or mixing a cocktail in an older car can be dangerous if your knees can't control the wheel safely, but in modern cars it's fine unless you're going around a roundabout.
The reason most modern cars have height adjustable steering wheels is so they can be put in just the right position to safely be operated with the knees. I agree that rolling a splff or mixing a cocktail in an older car can be dangerous if your knees can't control the wheel safely, but in modern cars it's fine unless you're going around a roundabout. static kill
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Fri 12 Apr 13

skydriver says...

We need more police to police this problem, it's easy to catch a motorist doing 35 in a 30 limit but not enough is being done as the pictures show, one can stand on any corner and watch drivers and within almost seconds you will see someone on the phone or doing some other daft driving move, pedestrian crossings are often ignored due to lack of concentration .
Having said that, police don't bother when cars are parked on the pavements it's now become the norm.
Take a look along Iford lane cars parked almost on top of a speed camera, and right across the path .......spare a thought to parents with double buggys or invalid chairs, who have to go into the road to get around the said cars.
We need more police to police this problem, it's easy to catch a motorist doing 35 in a 30 limit but not enough is being done as the pictures show, one can stand on any corner and watch drivers and within almost seconds you will see someone on the phone or doing some other daft driving move, pedestrian crossings are often ignored due to lack of concentration . Having said that, police don't bother when cars are parked on the pavements it's now become the norm. Take a look along Iford lane cars parked almost on top of a speed camera, and right across the path .......spare a thought to parents with double buggys or invalid chairs, who have to go into the road to get around the said cars. skydriver
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Bambamthe1st says...

But it's ok to smoke?????? WTF
But it's ok to smoke?????? WTF Bambamthe1st
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Fri 12 Apr 13

muscliffman says...

retry69 wrote:
Chickenegg wrote:
No straw clutching- that would involve taking a hand off the wheel lol!! And yes, I agree "incidents" are caused by driver error and there are unfortunately many under confident, hesitant, non observant drivers out there that make these errors. I would like to see drivers who are just capable of getting in the right lane at a roundabout as a start! Perhaps compulsory refresher courses for the more mature driver might help? What I'm trying to say is there seems to be a bandwagon being jumped on here and there are just so many other reasons for accidents (sorry-"incidents"!!


) that should be considered and let's not just penalise the crisp eaters here!! Soon we won't be allowed to change gear!!
yes yes yes as regular critics of mine will know i believe re-tests for the over 50s is needed badly to remind them os the basics of driving which sadly have been forgotten.You will not eradicate the die hard law/regulation breakers but i feel exposure like this can only have good positive results in highlighting our failures but for some reason questioning our own driving abiities angers some people
Ouch! Re-tests for the over 50s? So why are they the ones with the lowest Insurance premiums.... because they have the least accidents - a statistical fact we are told. Not angry, just confused by the idea.

I have no problem with re-tests (good basic idea retry69) for anyone of any age involved in a blameworthy accident or moderate/serious traffic offence. Or with refreshers past a certain age (70 perhaps), but not as young as the safe drivers only in their 50s.

But well done on this Echo people, maybe all the drivers shown should be first in line for a retest.

Are the Echo now perhaps going to extend this exercise to include another time consuming Police matter, by showing unattended cars parked around town with valuables on view and windows left open..........
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chickenegg[/bold] wrote: No straw clutching- that would involve taking a hand off the wheel lol!! And yes, I agree "incidents" are caused by driver error and there are unfortunately many under confident, hesitant, non observant drivers out there that make these errors. I would like to see drivers who are just capable of getting in the right lane at a roundabout as a start! Perhaps compulsory refresher courses for the more mature driver might help? What I'm trying to say is there seems to be a bandwagon being jumped on here and there are just so many other reasons for accidents (sorry-"incidents"!! ) that should be considered and let's not just penalise the crisp eaters here!! Soon we won't be allowed to change gear!![/p][/quote]yes yes yes as regular critics of mine will know i believe re-tests for the over 50s is needed badly to remind them os the basics of driving which sadly have been forgotten.You will not eradicate the die hard law/regulation breakers but i feel exposure like this can only have good positive results in highlighting our failures but for some reason questioning our own driving abiities angers some people[/p][/quote]Ouch! Re-tests for the over 50s? So why are they the ones with the lowest Insurance premiums.... because they have the least accidents - a statistical fact we are told. Not angry, just confused by the idea. I have no problem with re-tests (good basic idea retry69) for anyone of any age involved in a blameworthy accident or moderate/serious traffic offence. Or with refreshers past a certain age (70 perhaps), but not as young as the safe drivers only in their 50s. But well done on this Echo people, maybe all the drivers shown should be first in line for a retest. Are the Echo now perhaps going to extend this exercise to include another time consuming Police matter, by showing unattended cars parked around town with valuables on view and windows left open.......... muscliffman
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Fri 12 Apr 13

retry69 says...

Yeah Muscliffe man its a comment that gets thrown back at me with all kinds of stats i will not argue but i believe stats are manipulated or used for ones own means and when pressed i researched and found a survey done by a safety organisation showed there were more incidents and near misses at junctions by the over fifties than any age group.Just because someone has passed a test 40 odd years ago never had an incident,no points,no fines etc etc does not make them a safe, competent,responsibl
e driver
Yeah Muscliffe man its a comment that gets thrown back at me with all kinds of stats i will not argue but i believe stats are manipulated or used for ones own means and when pressed i researched and found a survey done by a safety organisation showed there were more incidents and near misses at junctions by the over fifties than any age group.Just because someone has passed a test 40 odd years ago never had an incident,no points,no fines etc etc does not make them a safe, competent,responsibl e driver retry69
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Fri 12 Apr 13

adspacebroker says...

KKen96 wrote:
I have a confession to make. Yesterday whilst driving at over 60mph, I took one hand off the wheel to adjust the temperature. I'm really sorry, I was hot and my hand was only off the wheel for a few seconds but I realise that is no excuse. Obviously I should have both hands glued to the wheel from the moment the engine has started until I reach my destination and a trained mechanic has certified that my vehicle is no longer running.

Or, alternatively, we could differentiate between the real hazards on the road and the Echo victimising innocent people who are in many cases not breaking any laws.

Sure, tackle drink drivers, driving while under the influence of drugs, excessive speeding in urban areas, etc. The stuff that causes accidents and deaths. But taking a photo of a man eating some crisps? Really?
Not being in proper control of a motor vehicle is quite clear.....therefore eating a bag of crisps generally requires the use of 2 hands! Have you ever experienced a sudden front wheel deflation even at 50mph? It rips the steering wheel from your hand without warning causing the vehicle to change course. 2 seconds later it has collided with another vehicle, a road sign or crash barrier, your car spins around as it screeches to a stop, and then the lorry driver who was following behind fails to stop in time and T-bones your car. You then slightly regain consciousness as the firefighters try and cut you out of the mangled wreck with the air ambulance landing on the road. Sadly the driver died at the scene leaving a wife and 2 young children. Do you want the good news....he wasn't eating a bag of crisps, changing a CD or even on the phone....it just happened without warning and I watched it all! So grow up and stop thinking it could never happen to you! If you are not in proper control of your vehicle for any reason then you are putting others at risk with your selfishness.
[quote][p][bold]KKen96[/bold] wrote: I have a confession to make. Yesterday whilst driving at over 60mph, I took one hand off the wheel to adjust the temperature. I'm really sorry, I was hot and my hand was only off the wheel for a few seconds but I realise that is no excuse. Obviously I should have both hands glued to the wheel from the moment the engine has started until I reach my destination and a trained mechanic has certified that my vehicle is no longer running. Or, alternatively, we could differentiate between the real hazards on the road and the Echo victimising innocent people who are in many cases not breaking any laws. Sure, tackle drink drivers, driving while under the influence of drugs, excessive speeding in urban areas, etc. The stuff that causes accidents and deaths. But taking a photo of a man eating some crisps? Really?[/p][/quote]Not being in proper control of a motor vehicle is quite clear.....therefore eating a bag of crisps generally requires the use of 2 hands! Have you ever experienced a sudden front wheel deflation even at 50mph? It rips the steering wheel from your hand without warning causing the vehicle to change course. 2 seconds later it has collided with another vehicle, a road sign or crash barrier, your car spins around as it screeches to a stop, and then the lorry driver who was following behind fails to stop in time and T-bones your car. You then slightly regain consciousness as the firefighters try and cut you out of the mangled wreck with the air ambulance landing on the road. Sadly the driver died at the scene leaving a wife and 2 young children. Do you want the good news....he wasn't eating a bag of crisps, changing a CD or even on the phone....it just happened without warning and I watched it all! So grow up and stop thinking it could never happen to you! If you are not in proper control of your vehicle for any reason then you are putting others at risk with your selfishness. adspacebroker
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Fri 12 Apr 13

djd says...

A lot of the posters on this site have obviously never been involved in an incident where someone doing something stupid has caused an accident, with perhaps life changing consequences.
I have just come back in from a short drive to the petrol station and to the chemist. The standard of driving I have witnessed in probably a two mile drive has varied from exemplary to downright dangerous.
Some drivers have no idea of the width of their vehicles, others fail to signal when turning, others push out of junctions in front of traffic.
One particular incident was along Southbourne Road where there are pinch bollards with clear signs as to which way traffic has priority. The number of drivers who drove through the Give Way signs was unbelievable.
If they ignore even the basic road safety advice and defy traffic regulations, we can only wonder how they survive on busier roads. Thank goodness Dorset doesn't have a motorway, the road death count would be horrendous.
I agree with adspacebroker (comment above). You don't know when it is going to happen, that's why many of these seemingly pointless rules and regulations are made
A lot of the posters on this site have obviously never been involved in an incident where someone doing something stupid has caused an accident, with perhaps life changing consequences. I have just come back in from a short drive to the petrol station and to the chemist. The standard of driving I have witnessed in probably a two mile drive has varied from exemplary to downright dangerous. Some drivers have no idea of the width of their vehicles, others fail to signal when turning, others push out of junctions in front of traffic. One particular incident was along Southbourne Road where there are pinch bollards with clear signs as to which way traffic has priority. The number of drivers who drove through the Give Way signs was unbelievable. If they ignore even the basic road safety advice and defy traffic regulations, we can only wonder how they survive on busier roads. Thank goodness Dorset doesn't have a motorway, the road death count would be horrendous. I agree with adspacebroker (comment above). You don't know when it is going to happen, that's why many of these seemingly pointless rules and regulations are made djd
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Fri 12 Apr 13

MrPitiful says...

Check this;-

"Inspector John Mallace of Dorset Police's road traffic unit says behaviour like this puts lives at risk.

He said: “As people drive around the county you will see people not paying attention to their driving. When you are using something that is distracting you from driving like a mobile phone or reading a map or reading directions or taking your jacket off - that puts yourself in significant danger of death or serious injury but also puts the rest of the public in danger as a result of your gross stupidity.”

Then read this:-

http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/news/10
221551.Special_Const
able_on_phone_when_s
he_collided_with_bik
er_David_Bartholomew
/?action=complain&ci
d=11279332

The new motto of Dorset Police should be "Do as we say, not as we Do"
Check this;- "Inspector John Mallace of Dorset Police's road traffic unit says behaviour like this puts lives at risk. He said: “As people drive around the county you will see people not paying attention to their driving. When you are using something that is distracting you from driving like a mobile phone or reading a map or reading directions or taking your jacket off - that puts yourself in significant danger of death or serious injury but also puts the rest of the public in danger as a result of your gross stupidity.” Then read this:- http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/10 221551.Special_Const able_on_phone_when_s he_collided_with_bik er_David_Bartholomew /?action=complain&ci d=11279332 The new motto of Dorset Police should be "Do as we say, not as we Do" MrPitiful
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Fri 12 Apr 13

b26b says...

So when did the echo qualify as judge, jury and executioner? This rag gets worse and worse by the day, go find something else to fume over.
So when did the echo qualify as judge, jury and executioner? This rag gets worse and worse by the day, go find something else to fume over. b26b
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Fri 12 Apr 13

muscliffman says...

retry69 wrote:
Yeah Muscliffe man its a comment that gets thrown back at me with all kinds of stats i will not argue but i believe stats are manipulated or used for ones own means and when pressed i researched and found a survey done by a safety organisation showed there were more incidents and near misses at junctions by the over fifties than any age group.Just because someone has passed a test 40 odd years ago never had an incident,no points,no fines etc etc does not make them a safe, competent,responsibl

e driver
Stats always are manipulated to suit. E.G. Licensed car drivers over the age of seventeen cause most accidents and near misses at junctions. Nobody could argue with that!

But the age of 50 is under halfway through today's adult life expectancy - not normally the start of infirmity (Indulge me on that please retry69). Maybe your over 50 'stat' information could be raised to over 65/70, it may be revealing - or not, depending who is asked.

I do think there should be full re-tests for traffic offenders (as pictured here) and accident blameworthy drivers. 'Refreshers' sounds better for the (say) over 70s, with only those demonstrating a clear inability to drive safely 'failing' - a discretionary option for a full retest being available, but only to some.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Yeah Muscliffe man its a comment that gets thrown back at me with all kinds of stats i will not argue but i believe stats are manipulated or used for ones own means and when pressed i researched and found a survey done by a safety organisation showed there were more incidents and near misses at junctions by the over fifties than any age group.Just because someone has passed a test 40 odd years ago never had an incident,no points,no fines etc etc does not make them a safe, competent,responsibl e driver[/p][/quote]Stats always are manipulated to suit. E.G. Licensed car drivers over the age of seventeen cause most accidents and near misses at junctions. Nobody could argue with that! But the age of 50 is under halfway through today's adult life expectancy - not normally the start of infirmity (Indulge me on that please retry69). Maybe your over 50 'stat' information could be raised to over 65/70, it may be revealing - or not, depending who is asked. I do think there should be full re-tests for traffic offenders (as pictured here) and accident blameworthy drivers. 'Refreshers' sounds better for the (say) over 70s, with only those demonstrating a clear inability to drive safely 'failing' - a discretionary option for a full retest being available, but only to some. muscliffman
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Brock_and_Roll says...

Cripes! If there are Echo hacks with cameras on bridges, I might have to stop bashing the bishop on the Wessex Way!
Cripes! If there are Echo hacks with cameras on bridges, I might have to stop bashing the bishop on the Wessex Way! Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Fri 12 Apr 13

poshboy says...

Got to love motorists!! Even when told their actions are wrong they have to insist they are right!!
Got to love motorists!! Even when told their actions are wrong they have to insist they are right!! poshboy
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Franks Tank says...

Eating crisps at the wheel on the morning commute is just shocking.
It's hardly a nutritious breakfast and they certainly aren't one of your 5 a day.
Eating crisps at the wheel on the morning commute is just shocking. It's hardly a nutritious breakfast and they certainly aren't one of your 5 a day. Franks Tank
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Fri 12 Apr 13

lilacfloyd says...

Lets hope the Echo journalists don't get photographed driving home tonight...

:)
Lets hope the Echo journalists don't get photographed driving home tonight... :) lilacfloyd
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Fri 12 Apr 13

retry69 says...

muscliffman wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Yeah Muscliffe man its a comment that gets thrown back at me with all kinds of stats i will not argue but i believe stats are manipulated or used for ones own means and when pressed i researched and found a survey done by a safety organisation showed there were more incidents and near misses at junctions by the over fifties than any age group.Just because someone has passed a test 40 odd years ago never had an incident,no points,no fines etc etc does not make them a safe, competent,responsibl


e driver
Stats always are manipulated to suit. E.G. Licensed car drivers over the age of seventeen cause most accidents and near misses at junctions. Nobody could argue with that!

But the age of 50 is under halfway through today's adult life expectancy - not normally the start of infirmity (Indulge me on that please retry69). Maybe your over 50 'stat' information could be raised to over 65/70, it may be revealing - or not, depending who is asked.

I do think there should be full re-tests for traffic offenders (as pictured here) and accident blameworthy drivers. 'Refreshers' sounds better for the (say) over 70s, with only those demonstrating a clear inability to drive safely 'failing' - a discretionary option for a full retest being available, but only to some.
Nah if we start at the over 50s the reduction in traffic would be noticed straight away as most would fail the re-test, then we could start on the rest of the motoring public and within a couple of years we would have a safer travelling enviroment for all road users.Suggest to your councillor/ex councillor mates that perhaps we could have a pilot scheme in Dorset and see how we go mmmmm
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Yeah Muscliffe man its a comment that gets thrown back at me with all kinds of stats i will not argue but i believe stats are manipulated or used for ones own means and when pressed i researched and found a survey done by a safety organisation showed there were more incidents and near misses at junctions by the over fifties than any age group.Just because someone has passed a test 40 odd years ago never had an incident,no points,no fines etc etc does not make them a safe, competent,responsibl e driver[/p][/quote]Stats always are manipulated to suit. E.G. Licensed car drivers over the age of seventeen cause most accidents and near misses at junctions. Nobody could argue with that! But the age of 50 is under halfway through today's adult life expectancy - not normally the start of infirmity (Indulge me on that please retry69). Maybe your over 50 'stat' information could be raised to over 65/70, it may be revealing - or not, depending who is asked. I do think there should be full re-tests for traffic offenders (as pictured here) and accident blameworthy drivers. 'Refreshers' sounds better for the (say) over 70s, with only those demonstrating a clear inability to drive safely 'failing' - a discretionary option for a full retest being available, but only to some.[/p][/quote]Nah if we start at the over 50s the reduction in traffic would be noticed straight away as most would fail the re-test, then we could start on the rest of the motoring public and within a couple of years we would have a safer travelling enviroment for all road users.Suggest to your councillor/ex councillor mates that perhaps we could have a pilot scheme in Dorset and see how we go mmmmm retry69
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Fri 12 Apr 13

EGHH says...

None taken by a speed camera then.

I've always said we need more traffic police that could be paid for if they shut the Camera Partnership.

West Midlands Council have closed their partnership and turned off all the cameras as its too expensive to run.

Hopefully they will put it into real roads policing and catch those who break the law whilst staying under the speed limit!
None taken by a speed camera then. I've always said we need more traffic police that could be paid for if they shut the Camera Partnership. West Midlands Council have closed their partnership and turned off all the cameras as its too expensive to run. Hopefully they will put it into real roads policing and catch those who break the law whilst staying under the speed limit! EGHH
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Fri 12 Apr 13

poshboy says...

MrPitiful wrote:
Check this;-

"Inspector John Mallace of Dorset Police's road traffic unit says behaviour like this puts lives at risk.

He said: “As people drive around the county you will see people not paying attention to their driving. When you are using something that is distracting you from driving like a mobile phone or reading a map or reading directions or taking your jacket off - that puts yourself in significant danger of death or serious injury but also puts the rest of the public in danger as a result of your gross stupidity.”

Then read this:-

http://www.bournemou

thecho.co.uk/news/10

221551.Special_Const

able_on_phone_when_s

he_collided_with_bik

er_David_Bartholomew

/?action=complain&am
p;ci
d=11279332

The new motto of Dorset Police should be "Do as we say, not as we Do"
Think you'll find that same cop wanted her prosecuted too
[quote][p][bold]MrPitiful[/bold] wrote: Check this;- "Inspector John Mallace of Dorset Police's road traffic unit says behaviour like this puts lives at risk. He said: “As people drive around the county you will see people not paying attention to their driving. When you are using something that is distracting you from driving like a mobile phone or reading a map or reading directions or taking your jacket off - that puts yourself in significant danger of death or serious injury but also puts the rest of the public in danger as a result of your gross stupidity.” Then read this:- http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/10 221551.Special_Const able_on_phone_when_s he_collided_with_bik er_David_Bartholomew /?action=complain&am p;ci d=11279332 The new motto of Dorset Police should be "Do as we say, not as we Do"[/p][/quote]Think you'll find that same cop wanted her prosecuted too poshboy
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Fri 12 Apr 13

bikerbiker says...

name and shame them all, well done that man and the Echo
name and shame them all, well done that man and the Echo bikerbiker
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Fri 12 Apr 13

golfer33 says...

SensibleChap wrote:
Nice job Echo! I am particularly pleased that you decided to use your photograpers as pseudo police officers for the day. Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling going out and helping the police do their job? I always thought it was the job of the press to report the news and not to create the news by capturing its readership committing minor legal transgressions. If this is the way the Echo is going then I think we should all be worried. I am particularly looking forward to the Echo running the story "OUTRAGEOUS: The shame of those who manipulate Pick n Mix!!" This is journalism at its very worst.
I think its part of the No Excuse campaign, to highlight what is going on, on our roads in and around Dorset. Maybe, just maybe, it might save a poor innocent kids life.
[quote][p][bold]SensibleChap[/bold] wrote: Nice job Echo! I am particularly pleased that you decided to use your photograpers as pseudo police officers for the day. Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling going out and helping the police do their job? I always thought it was the job of the press to report the news and not to create the news by capturing its readership committing minor legal transgressions. If this is the way the Echo is going then I think we should all be worried. I am particularly looking forward to the Echo running the story "OUTRAGEOUS: The shame of those who manipulate Pick n Mix!!" This is journalism at its very worst.[/p][/quote]I think its part of the No Excuse campaign, to highlight what is going on, on our roads in and around Dorset. Maybe, just maybe, it might save a poor innocent kids life. golfer33
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Fri 12 Apr 13

b26b says...

Chickenegg wrote:
I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police.
I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.
Agree, however this isnt so much as a campaign against bad driving, rather something to bung in the paper, slow news day.
[quote][p][bold]Chickenegg[/bold] wrote: I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police. I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.[/p][/quote]Agree, however this isnt so much as a campaign against bad driving, rather something to bung in the paper, slow news day. b26b
  • Score: 0

6:14pm Fri 12 Apr 13

b26b says...

SensibleChap wrote:
Nice job Echo!

I am particularly pleased that you decided to use your photograpers as pseudo police officers for the day.

Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling going out and helping the police do their job?

I always thought it was the job of the press to report the news and not to create the news by capturing its readership committing minor legal transgressions.

If this is the way the Echo is going then I think we should all be worried.

I am particularly looking forward to the Echo running the story "OUTRAGEOUS: The shame of those who manipulate Pick n Mix!!"

This is journalism at its very worst.
Its not even Journalism, the ohec lost the abillity to do that years ago.
[quote][p][bold]SensibleChap[/bold] wrote: Nice job Echo! I am particularly pleased that you decided to use your photograpers as pseudo police officers for the day. Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling going out and helping the police do their job? I always thought it was the job of the press to report the news and not to create the news by capturing its readership committing minor legal transgressions. If this is the way the Echo is going then I think we should all be worried. I am particularly looking forward to the Echo running the story "OUTRAGEOUS: The shame of those who manipulate Pick n Mix!!" This is journalism at its very worst.[/p][/quote]Its not even Journalism, the ohec lost the abillity to do that years ago. b26b
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Fri 12 Apr 13

paul13 says...

Can't drivers just drive to their ability. If they do not feel capable of eating crisps while driving, then don't. If you feel realy safe then you probably are. Anyway, this is such a non event, the dangerous behaviour on our roads is not keeping distance. I estimate that 80% of drivers are too close to the car in front at the speed they are travelling. This is far more of an issue than using one hand to do something else when driving. Let's get it all in proportion.
Can't drivers just drive to their ability. If they do not feel capable of eating crisps while driving, then don't. If you feel realy safe then you probably are. Anyway, this is such a non event, the dangerous behaviour on our roads is not keeping distance. I estimate that 80% of drivers are too close to the car in front at the speed they are travelling. This is far more of an issue than using one hand to do something else when driving. Let's get it all in proportion. paul13
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Fri 12 Apr 13

retry69 says...

paul13 wrote:
Can't drivers just drive to their ability. If they do not feel capable of eating crisps while driving, then don't. If you feel realy safe then you probably are. Anyway, this is such a non event, the dangerous behaviour on our roads is not keeping distance. I estimate that 80% of drivers are too close to the car in front at the speed they are travelling. This is far more of an issue than using one hand to do something else when driving. Let's get it all in proportion.
Yep i agree i think you should get all in proportion and certainly not make assumptions on your own guesswork
[quote][p][bold]paul13[/bold] wrote: Can't drivers just drive to their ability. If they do not feel capable of eating crisps while driving, then don't. If you feel realy safe then you probably are. Anyway, this is such a non event, the dangerous behaviour on our roads is not keeping distance. I estimate that 80% of drivers are too close to the car in front at the speed they are travelling. This is far more of an issue than using one hand to do something else when driving. Let's get it all in proportion.[/p][/quote]Yep i agree i think you should get all in proportion and certainly not make assumptions on your own guesswork retry69
  • Score: 0

6:50pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Frank Spencer says...

Interesting Report Echo.

If only the cuts were not constantly reducing the number of traffic police around on our roads maybe these sights would not be so so very common. Yesterday I observed 3 drivers on their phones in as many minutes. Another chap was texting whilst leaving a car park - couldn't take an extra minute in the car park to send an urgent text!
Interesting Report Echo. If only the cuts were not constantly reducing the number of traffic police around on our roads maybe these sights would not be so so very common. Yesterday I observed 3 drivers on their phones in as many minutes. Another chap was texting whilst leaving a car park - couldn't take an extra minute in the car park to send an urgent text! Frank Spencer
  • Score: 0

7:04pm Fri 12 Apr 13

paul13 says...

retry69 wrote:
paul13 wrote:
Can't drivers just drive to their ability. If they do not feel capable of eating crisps while driving, then don't. If you feel realy safe then you probably are. Anyway, this is such a non event, the dangerous behaviour on our roads is not keeping distance. I estimate that 80% of drivers are too close to the car in front at the speed they are travelling. This is far more of an issue than using one hand to do something else when driving. Let's get it all in proportion.
Yep i agree i think you should get all in proportion and certainly not make assumptions on your own guesswork
If we want to change behaviour we need to educate not punish. Get people to understand what happens if they do foolish things. The majority do some of the things that they shouldn't and the majority are capable of learning. Positive behaviour modification is far more effective than punitive measures for all but a very few.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]paul13[/bold] wrote: Can't drivers just drive to their ability. If they do not feel capable of eating crisps while driving, then don't. If you feel realy safe then you probably are. Anyway, this is such a non event, the dangerous behaviour on our roads is not keeping distance. I estimate that 80% of drivers are too close to the car in front at the speed they are travelling. This is far more of an issue than using one hand to do something else when driving. Let's get it all in proportion.[/p][/quote]Yep i agree i think you should get all in proportion and certainly not make assumptions on your own guesswork[/p][/quote]If we want to change behaviour we need to educate not punish. Get people to understand what happens if they do foolish things. The majority do some of the things that they shouldn't and the majority are capable of learning. Positive behaviour modification is far more effective than punitive measures for all but a very few. paul13
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Fri 12 Apr 13

joncon says...

This was a worthwhile exercise. Could you now repeat it by standing in Bournemouth square for a day and taking photos of all the cyclists who think the no cycling signs don't apply to them? Would be good.
This was a worthwhile exercise. Could you now repeat it by standing in Bournemouth square for a day and taking photos of all the cyclists who think the no cycling signs don't apply to them? Would be good. joncon
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Fri 12 Apr 13

cycletourer says...

well i feel totally abused in this article.How dare drivers show they are a danger on our roads when as all Echo commenter's know that it is cyclists who are the danger to our every day lives.To show that there are unsafe car/van/lorry drivers who also use are roads is unforgivable.Please re address this and let motorists hit back at cyclists again.
well i feel totally abused in this article.How dare drivers show they are a danger on our roads when as all Echo commenter's know that it is cyclists who are the danger to our every day lives.To show that there are unsafe car/van/lorry drivers who also use are roads is unforgivable.Please re address this and let motorists hit back at cyclists again. cycletourer
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Fri 12 Apr 13

paul13 says...

On average being on the internet makes you 50% angrier.
On average being on the internet makes you 50% angrier. paul13
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Fri 12 Apr 13

cycletourer says...

paul13 wrote:
On average being on the internet makes you 50% angrier.
and cycling over driving makes you 100% fitter.
[quote][p][bold]paul13[/bold] wrote: On average being on the internet makes you 50% angrier.[/p][/quote]and cycling over driving makes you 100% fitter. cycletourer
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Fri 12 Apr 13

cycletourer says...

Just a thought for you all.Recent press reports say that parents would not allow their children to cycle to school because of the heavy load of traffic during the school run time.Considering that probably 70% of that traffic is children being driven to school,allowing children their children to cycle would reduce traffic congestion by 70% (on average) during the school journey peak time so therefore making it safer for children to cycle to school and also reducing traffic congestion for those driving to work.
Just a thought for you all.Recent press reports say that parents would not allow their children to cycle to school because of the heavy load of traffic during the school run time.Considering that probably 70% of that traffic is children being driven to school,allowing children their children to cycle would reduce traffic congestion by 70% (on average) during the school journey peak time so therefore making it safer for children to cycle to school and also reducing traffic congestion for those driving to work. cycletourer
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Fri 12 Apr 13

paul13 says...

cycletourer wrote:
Just a thought for you all.Recent press reports say that parents would not allow their children to cycle to school because of the heavy load of traffic during the school run time.Considering that probably 70% of that traffic is children being driven to school,allowing children their children to cycle would reduce traffic congestion by 70% (on average) during the school journey peak time so therefore making it safer for children to cycle to school and also reducing traffic congestion for those driving to work.
Just make it illegal for cars with able children in to get within 1/4 mile of a school. Do they walk a 1/4 mile or cycle all the way?
[quote][p][bold]cycletourer[/bold] wrote: Just a thought for you all.Recent press reports say that parents would not allow their children to cycle to school because of the heavy load of traffic during the school run time.Considering that probably 70% of that traffic is children being driven to school,allowing children their children to cycle would reduce traffic congestion by 70% (on average) during the school journey peak time so therefore making it safer for children to cycle to school and also reducing traffic congestion for those driving to work.[/p][/quote]Just make it illegal for cars with able children in to get within 1/4 mile of a school. Do they walk a 1/4 mile or cycle all the way? paul13
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Vikki27 says...

The one thing that is really shocking to me are how many people seem to think this sort of behaviour is okay!! When you are driving a car the ONLY activity you should be undertaking is being responsible for driving your car.

If you want to eat or drink or read or talk on the phone or let your kids/pets run wild then fine. But at least have decency enough to pull over and do it while safely parked at the side of the road. There is absolutely no reasonable excuse for performing any of these activities while you're in control of a heavy, motorised machine!

And if you think there is, you shouldn't be on the road in the first place. How close will YOU come to killing someone before you change your behaviour?
The one thing that is really shocking to me are how many people seem to think this sort of behaviour is okay!! When you are driving a car the ONLY activity you should be undertaking is being responsible for driving your car. If you want to eat or drink or read or talk on the phone or let your kids/pets run wild then fine. But at least have decency enough to pull over and do it while safely parked at the side of the road. There is absolutely no reasonable excuse for performing any of these activities while you're in control of a heavy, motorised machine! And if you think there is, you shouldn't be on the road in the first place. How close will YOU come to killing someone before you change your behaviour? Vikki27
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Fri 12 Apr 13

paul13 says...

The problem is that there is no clear line. Can you listen to the radio? Can you listen to sat nav? Can you talk to a passenger? Can you smoke? Can you eat a banana? Can you wind the window down? Can we use our common sense and stop trying to control every little thing people do.
The problem is that there is no clear line. Can you listen to the radio? Can you listen to sat nav? Can you talk to a passenger? Can you smoke? Can you eat a banana? Can you wind the window down? Can we use our common sense and stop trying to control every little thing people do. paul13
  • Score: 0

8:41pm Fri 12 Apr 13

moorsman70 says...

if you want really bad driving then stay by the mini roundabout in west moors for ten minutes-thats all you will need
if you want really bad driving then stay by the mini roundabout in west moors for ten minutes-thats all you will need moorsman70
  • Score: 0

8:54pm Fri 12 Apr 13

TheRandom says...

Was no problem using your phone or a car phone 15 years ago when driving.

Maybe standards of driving have got worse or is it just something to link an accident to now and helps with the insurance claims industry?
Was no problem using your phone or a car phone 15 years ago when driving. Maybe standards of driving have got worse or is it just something to link an accident to now and helps with the insurance claims industry? TheRandom
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Fri 12 Apr 13

cycletourer says...

paul13 wrote:
cycletourer wrote:
Just a thought for you all.Recent press reports say that parents would not allow their children to cycle to school because of the heavy load of traffic during the school run time.Considering that probably 70% of that traffic is children being driven to school,allowing children their children to cycle would reduce traffic congestion by 70% (on average) during the school journey peak time so therefore making it safer for children to cycle to school and also reducing traffic congestion for those driving to work.
Just make it illegal for cars with able children in to get within 1/4 mile of a school. Do they walk a 1/4 mile or cycle all the way?
either way has to be better for the children.So many schools proudly showing banners stating that they are a cycle to school or a walk to school supporter yet the queues of cars still line up in the morning to get into their school grounds?
[quote][p][bold]paul13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cycletourer[/bold] wrote: Just a thought for you all.Recent press reports say that parents would not allow their children to cycle to school because of the heavy load of traffic during the school run time.Considering that probably 70% of that traffic is children being driven to school,allowing children their children to cycle would reduce traffic congestion by 70% (on average) during the school journey peak time so therefore making it safer for children to cycle to school and also reducing traffic congestion for those driving to work.[/p][/quote]Just make it illegal for cars with able children in to get within 1/4 mile of a school. Do they walk a 1/4 mile or cycle all the way?[/p][/quote]either way has to be better for the children.So many schools proudly showing banners stating that they are a cycle to school or a walk to school supporter yet the queues of cars still line up in the morning to get into their school grounds? cycletourer
  • Score: 0

9:44pm Fri 12 Apr 13

ragj195 says...

TheRandom wrote:
Was no problem using your phone or a car phone 15 years ago when driving.

Maybe standards of driving have got worse or is it just something to link an accident to now and helps with the insurance claims industry?
Are you seriously suggesting that using your phone while driving isn't dangerous. Maybe it was no problem 15 years ago because it wasn't yet clear how many accidents it causes. Maybe we should all take heroin because it was fine 100 years ago? You can also do a lot more than just make a call on phone these days.

You can always tell when a driver is texting.The car slowly veers towards oncoming traffic before suddenly correcting itself. You can't text without looking at the screen which means you're not looking at the road.

I used to cycle to school but there is no way I would let my son or daughter cycle to school when they're old enough. Roads these days are lethal because too many people are texting, emailing or looking at facebook while driving!
[quote][p][bold]TheRandom[/bold] wrote: Was no problem using your phone or a car phone 15 years ago when driving. Maybe standards of driving have got worse or is it just something to link an accident to now and helps with the insurance claims industry?[/p][/quote]Are you seriously suggesting that using your phone while driving isn't dangerous. Maybe it was no problem 15 years ago because it wasn't yet clear how many accidents it causes. Maybe we should all take heroin because it was fine 100 years ago? You can also do a lot more than just make a call on phone these days. You can always tell when a driver is texting.The car slowly veers towards oncoming traffic before suddenly correcting itself. You can't text without looking at the screen which means you're not looking at the road. I used to cycle to school but there is no way I would let my son or daughter cycle to school when they're old enough. Roads these days are lethal because too many people are texting, emailing or looking at facebook while driving! ragj195
  • Score: 0

9:59pm Fri 12 Apr 13

muscliffman says...

joncon wrote:
This was a worthwhile exercise. Could you now repeat it by standing in Bournemouth square for a day and taking photos of all the cyclists who think the no cycling signs don't apply to them? Would be good.
An excellent idea to target bad cyclists as well, but also of course in Boscombe precinct, along the Promenade, at any set of 'red' traffic lights, any busy road in the dark and on any high street pavement that takes the photographers fancy!

A perfectly level playing field - trust nobody has a problem with that.
[quote][p][bold]joncon[/bold] wrote: This was a worthwhile exercise. Could you now repeat it by standing in Bournemouth square for a day and taking photos of all the cyclists who think the no cycling signs don't apply to them? Would be good.[/p][/quote]An excellent idea to target bad cyclists as well, but also of course in Boscombe precinct, along the Promenade, at any set of 'red' traffic lights, any busy road in the dark and on any high street pavement that takes the photographers fancy! A perfectly level playing field - trust nobody has a problem with that. muscliffman
  • Score: 0

10:18pm Fri 12 Apr 13

GAHmusic says...

Pablo23 wrote:
aerolover wrote:
Make you wonder why more people didn't die in the 60's when you didn't have to wear a seat belt and everyone ate while driving.
I agree with not being on the phone while driving but have something to eat or drink as long as you are thinking what you are doing is no big crime.
The next thing will be no music or opening the windows while driving. Perhaps we should stop everyone driving that would cut road deaths.
In the 60's the top speed of most cars was about 34mph and it took about 20min to reach that speed.
Also there were far fewer cars on the road then.

Roads are a lot more dangerous now with the power of quantity of modern cars, hence the need for seat belts, air bags, dog pouches etc
I havent got a dog pouch in my car would it improve my safety? Also should I get a dog to put in it?
[quote][p][bold]Pablo23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aerolover[/bold] wrote: Make you wonder why more people didn't die in the 60's when you didn't have to wear a seat belt and everyone ate while driving. I agree with not being on the phone while driving but have something to eat or drink as long as you are thinking what you are doing is no big crime. The next thing will be no music or opening the windows while driving. Perhaps we should stop everyone driving that would cut road deaths.[/p][/quote]In the 60's the top speed of most cars was about 34mph and it took about 20min to reach that speed. Also there were far fewer cars on the road then. Roads are a lot more dangerous now with the power of quantity of modern cars, hence the need for seat belts, air bags, dog pouches etc[/p][/quote]I havent got a dog pouch in my car would it improve my safety? Also should I get a dog to put in it? GAHmusic
  • Score: 0

10:23pm Fri 12 Apr 13

Astrium says...

Next time I see the Echo camara man on a bridge I'll give a one finger salute, I better not do the famous echo arms crossed frowning look.
Next time I see the Echo camara man on a bridge I'll give a one finger salute, I better not do the famous echo arms crossed frowning look. Astrium
  • Score: 0

10:28pm Fri 12 Apr 13

cycletourer says...

muscliffman wrote:
joncon wrote:
This was a worthwhile exercise. Could you now repeat it by standing in Bournemouth square for a day and taking photos of all the cyclists who think the no cycling signs don't apply to them? Would be good.
An excellent idea to target bad cyclists as well, but also of course in Boscombe precinct, along the Promenade, at any set of 'red' traffic lights, any busy road in the dark and on any high street pavement that takes the photographers fancy!

A perfectly level playing field - trust nobody has a problem with that.
shouldnt think anyone resonsible cyclist would have problem with this just as any reponsible motorist do not have a problem with speed cameras,trafffic wardens or fixed penalty notices for traffic offences such as seat belt usage or mobile phone use.The ones who cry out against all this are no better than each other regardless of the vehicle they use.They are the law breakers who put all our lives at risk.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joncon[/bold] wrote: This was a worthwhile exercise. Could you now repeat it by standing in Bournemouth square for a day and taking photos of all the cyclists who think the no cycling signs don't apply to them? Would be good.[/p][/quote]An excellent idea to target bad cyclists as well, but also of course in Boscombe precinct, along the Promenade, at any set of 'red' traffic lights, any busy road in the dark and on any high street pavement that takes the photographers fancy! A perfectly level playing field - trust nobody has a problem with that.[/p][/quote]shouldnt think anyone resonsible cyclist would have problem with this just as any reponsible motorist do not have a problem with speed cameras,trafffic wardens or fixed penalty notices for traffic offences such as seat belt usage or mobile phone use.The ones who cry out against all this are no better than each other regardless of the vehicle they use.They are the law breakers who put all our lives at risk. cycletourer
  • Score: 0

12:20am Sat 13 Apr 13

muscliffman says...

cycletourer wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
joncon wrote:
This was a worthwhile exercise. Could you now repeat it by standing in Bournemouth square for a day and taking photos of all the cyclists who think the no cycling signs don't apply to them? Would be good.
An excellent idea to target bad cyclists as well, but also of course in Boscombe precinct, along the Promenade, at any set of 'red' traffic lights, any busy road in the dark and on any high street pavement that takes the photographers fancy!

A perfectly level playing field - trust nobody has a problem with that.
shouldnt think anyone resonsible cyclist would have problem with this just as any reponsible motorist do not have a problem with speed cameras,trafffic wardens or fixed penalty notices for traffic offences such as seat belt usage or mobile phone use.The ones who cry out against all this are no better than each other regardless of the vehicle they use.They are the law breakers who put all our lives at risk.
Fair comment - agreed!
[quote][p][bold]cycletourer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joncon[/bold] wrote: This was a worthwhile exercise. Could you now repeat it by standing in Bournemouth square for a day and taking photos of all the cyclists who think the no cycling signs don't apply to them? Would be good.[/p][/quote]An excellent idea to target bad cyclists as well, but also of course in Boscombe precinct, along the Promenade, at any set of 'red' traffic lights, any busy road in the dark and on any high street pavement that takes the photographers fancy! A perfectly level playing field - trust nobody has a problem with that.[/p][/quote]shouldnt think anyone resonsible cyclist would have problem with this just as any reponsible motorist do not have a problem with speed cameras,trafffic wardens or fixed penalty notices for traffic offences such as seat belt usage or mobile phone use.The ones who cry out against all this are no better than each other regardless of the vehicle they use.They are the law breakers who put all our lives at risk.[/p][/quote]Fair comment - agreed! muscliffman
  • Score: 0

1:34am Sat 13 Apr 13

Rob S says...

I can't believe the echo have nothing better to do than take photographs from a bridge
if I see someone on a bridge it always makes me nervous as to what their intentions are , this idiot photographer should be questioned by the police as to why they think they should distract drivers by taking pictures on a bridge on a busy road.
You have his name just as you now have some registrations of motorists please if you are going to prosecute start with the press who think they are above the law
I can't believe the echo have nothing better to do than take photographs from a bridge if I see someone on a bridge it always makes me nervous as to what their intentions are , this idiot photographer should be questioned by the police as to why they think they should distract drivers by taking pictures on a bridge on a busy road. You have his name just as you now have some registrations of motorists please if you are going to prosecute start with the press who think they are above the law Rob S
  • Score: 0

7:14am Sat 13 Apr 13

Avengerboy says...

And nobody crashed. But several people lost their jobs?
And nobody crashed. But several people lost their jobs? Avengerboy
  • Score: 0

7:40am Sat 13 Apr 13

retry69 says...

Avengerboy wrote:
And nobody crashed. But several people lost their jobs?
Really! well there is justice then!
[quote][p][bold]Avengerboy[/bold] wrote: And nobody crashed. But several people lost their jobs?[/p][/quote]Really! well there is justice then! retry69
  • Score: 0

8:12am Sat 13 Apr 13

Lord Spring says...

retry69 wrote:
Avengerboy wrote:
And nobody crashed. But several people lost their jobs?
Really! well there is justice then!
Would it not be nice to see justice done in print.
In the past court proceeding of all sorts appeared in the Local Paper so shaming occurred along with the penalty.
Not so nowadays there was a brief spell of In The Dock, which if you had committed the heinous offence of not having a TV licence the conurbation was informed but the thieves local to you remained anonymous.
The only thing about these pictures it saves a thousand words
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avengerboy[/bold] wrote: And nobody crashed. But several people lost their jobs?[/p][/quote]Really! well there is justice then![/p][/quote]Would it not be nice to see justice done in print. In the past court proceeding of all sorts appeared in the Local Paper so shaming occurred along with the penalty. Not so nowadays there was a brief spell of In The Dock, which if you had committed the heinous offence of not having a TV licence the conurbation was informed but the thieves local to you remained anonymous. The only thing about these pictures it saves a thousand words Lord Spring
  • Score: 0

9:09am Sat 13 Apr 13

scrumpyjack says...

poshboy wrote:
MrPitiful wrote:
Check this;-

"Inspector John Mallace of Dorset Police's road traffic unit says behaviour like this puts lives at risk.

He said: “As people drive around the county you will see people not paying attention to their driving. When you are using something that is distracting you from driving like a mobile phone or reading a map or reading directions or taking your jacket off - that puts yourself in significant danger of death or serious injury but also puts the rest of the public in danger as a result of your gross stupidity.”

Then read this:-

http://www.bournemou


thecho.co.uk/news/10


221551.Special_Const


able_on_phone_when_s


he_collided_with_bik


er_David_Bartholomew


/?action=complain&am
p;am
p;ci
d=11279332

The new motto of Dorset Police should be "Do as we say, not as we Do"
Think you'll find that same cop wanted her prosecuted too
You're just banging your head against a very thick wall.
[quote][p][bold]poshboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrPitiful[/bold] wrote: Check this;- "Inspector John Mallace of Dorset Police's road traffic unit says behaviour like this puts lives at risk. He said: “As people drive around the county you will see people not paying attention to their driving. When you are using something that is distracting you from driving like a mobile phone or reading a map or reading directions or taking your jacket off - that puts yourself in significant danger of death or serious injury but also puts the rest of the public in danger as a result of your gross stupidity.” Then read this:- http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/10 221551.Special_Const able_on_phone_when_s he_collided_with_bik er_David_Bartholomew /?action=complain&am p;am p;ci d=11279332 The new motto of Dorset Police should be "Do as we say, not as we Do"[/p][/quote]Think you'll find that same cop wanted her prosecuted too[/p][/quote]You're just banging your head against a very thick wall. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

9:20am Sat 13 Apr 13

scrumpyjack says...

muscliffman wrote:
joncon wrote:
This was a worthwhile exercise. Could you now repeat it by standing in Bournemouth square for a day and taking photos of all the cyclists who think the no cycling signs don't apply to them? Would be good.
An excellent idea to target bad cyclists as well, but also of course in Boscombe precinct, along the Promenade, at any set of 'red' traffic lights, any busy road in the dark and on any high street pavement that takes the photographers fancy!

A perfectly level playing field - trust nobody has a problem with that.
Absolutely.

And let's not forget bad pedestrians.

A woman with a small shopping trolley careered out of Waitrose yesterday and missed me by INCHES.

Will nobody think of the children?

Oh oh and loose dogs. I saw one them little bar stewards this morning. No control what so ever, he was here there and everywhere. Outrage. Rant.

Why all the focus about cars on the Wessex Way? Why oh why oh why oh why oh why are you all talking about that and not going completely off track and try and drag your own agenda into the forum???
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joncon[/bold] wrote: This was a worthwhile exercise. Could you now repeat it by standing in Bournemouth square for a day and taking photos of all the cyclists who think the no cycling signs don't apply to them? Would be good.[/p][/quote]An excellent idea to target bad cyclists as well, but also of course in Boscombe precinct, along the Promenade, at any set of 'red' traffic lights, any busy road in the dark and on any high street pavement that takes the photographers fancy! A perfectly level playing field - trust nobody has a problem with that.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. And let's not forget bad pedestrians. A woman with a small shopping trolley careered out of Waitrose yesterday and missed me by INCHES. Will nobody think of the children? Oh oh and loose dogs. I saw one them little bar stewards this morning. No control what so ever, he was here there and everywhere. Outrage. Rant. Why all the focus about cars on the Wessex Way? Why oh why oh why oh why oh why are you all talking about that and not going completely off track and try and drag your own agenda into the forum??? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

9:27am Sat 13 Apr 13

MrPitiful says...

I can't wait for the 1st pic of the Bournemouth Echo staff member with bad driving habits to appear.

I hope it's the one who regularly pulls out onto Richmond Hill with his phone in hand & doesn't know how to use his indicators!

Must get a snap for the local crimestoppers.

No - hang on, I have better things to do.
I can't wait for the 1st pic of the Bournemouth Echo staff member with bad driving habits to appear. I hope it's the one who regularly pulls out onto Richmond Hill with his phone in hand & doesn't know how to use his indicators! Must get a snap for the local crimestoppers. No - hang on, I have better things to do. MrPitiful
  • Score: 0

9:38am Sat 13 Apr 13

retry69 says...

MrPitiful wrote:
I can't wait for the 1st pic of the Bournemouth Echo staff member with bad driving habits to appear.

I hope it's the one who regularly pulls out onto Richmond Hill with his phone in hand & doesn't know how to use his indicators!

Must get a snap for the local crimestoppers.

No - hang on, I have better things to do.
Very appropriate username?
[quote][p][bold]MrPitiful[/bold] wrote: I can't wait for the 1st pic of the Bournemouth Echo staff member with bad driving habits to appear. I hope it's the one who regularly pulls out onto Richmond Hill with his phone in hand & doesn't know how to use his indicators! Must get a snap for the local crimestoppers. No - hang on, I have better things to do.[/p][/quote]Very appropriate username? retry69
  • Score: 0

9:41am Sat 13 Apr 13

Poppet87 says...

Although I agree with this naming and shaming... Showing a persons number plate is COMPLETELY out of order!
That reg can go on to provide a name, an address and even an age of the house occupants.
Basically, unless they've agreed for you to show it... You're going to have a data protection breach on your hands.
Although I agree with this naming and shaming... Showing a persons number plate is COMPLETELY out of order! That reg can go on to provide a name, an address and even an age of the house occupants. Basically, unless they've agreed for you to show it... You're going to have a data protection breach on your hands. Poppet87
  • Score: 0

9:42am Sat 13 Apr 13

paul13 says...

Many years ago I tried to learn ice hockey. There were other players who were very skilled, partly through natural talent and partly through experience. These experienced players would wind and turn between other players at great speed with supreme control while keeping communication with other players on the other side of the ice. They could do things that I had no chance without injuring myself or someone else. I gave it up in the end, it wasn't within my capability, I still skate around a rink in nice orderly circles now and then. Occasionally I see the old ice hockey players on these rinks effortlessly turning as they skate, totally controlled, but exercising very little effort. They understand that there are less experienced people on the ice and give way to them, skating defensively. They are generally going much faster but with more care. They understand the importance of distance and thinking ahead, predicting what others are about to do. For them this level of concentration comes very naturally.
I saw one the other day skating round eating an apple. I haven't got a photo.
Many years ago I tried to learn ice hockey. There were other players who were very skilled, partly through natural talent and partly through experience. These experienced players would wind and turn between other players at great speed with supreme control while keeping communication with other players on the other side of the ice. They could do things that I had no chance without injuring myself or someone else. I gave it up in the end, it wasn't within my capability, I still skate around a rink in nice orderly circles now and then. Occasionally I see the old ice hockey players on these rinks effortlessly turning as they skate, totally controlled, but exercising very little effort. They understand that there are less experienced people on the ice and give way to them, skating defensively. They are generally going much faster but with more care. They understand the importance of distance and thinking ahead, predicting what others are about to do. For them this level of concentration comes very naturally. I saw one the other day skating round eating an apple. I haven't got a photo. paul13
  • Score: 0

9:45am Sat 13 Apr 13

MrPitiful says...

Poppet87 wrote:
Although I agree with this naming and shaming... Showing a persons number plate is COMPLETELY out of order!
That reg can go on to provide a name, an address and even an age of the house occupants.
Basically, unless they've agreed for you to show it... You're going to have a data protection breach on your hands.
Ooh - you will have all the "experts" having a go at you now..
[quote][p][bold]Poppet87[/bold] wrote: Although I agree with this naming and shaming... Showing a persons number plate is COMPLETELY out of order! That reg can go on to provide a name, an address and even an age of the house occupants. Basically, unless they've agreed for you to show it... You're going to have a data protection breach on your hands.[/p][/quote]Ooh - you will have all the "experts" having a go at you now.. MrPitiful
  • Score: 0

9:52am Sat 13 Apr 13

bbird says...

Ban husbands while wife driving. Constant whinging really distracts
Ban husbands while wife driving. Constant whinging really distracts bbird
  • Score: 0

10:24am Sat 13 Apr 13

scrumpyjack says...

Poppet87 wrote:
Although I agree with this naming and shaming... Showing a persons number plate is COMPLETELY out of order!
That reg can go on to provide a name, an address and even an age of the house occupants.
Basically, unless they've agreed for you to show it... You're going to have a data protection breach on your hands.
What????????

Dear god woman.

So, I park next to your car in a car park - am I to shut my eyes in case I see your number plate?

And do you know what the Data Protection Act actualy is? Google it.
[quote][p][bold]Poppet87[/bold] wrote: Although I agree with this naming and shaming... Showing a persons number plate is COMPLETELY out of order! That reg can go on to provide a name, an address and even an age of the house occupants. Basically, unless they've agreed for you to show it... You're going to have a data protection breach on your hands.[/p][/quote]What???????? Dear god woman. So, I park next to your car in a car park - am I to shut my eyes in case I see your number plate? And do you know what the Data Protection Act actualy is? Google it. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

11:13am Sat 13 Apr 13

FNS-man says...

Chickenegg wrote:
I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police.
I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.
Exactly the attitude that causes so many accidents. Everyone who kills someone on the road seems to have a clean driving record, and it's put down to a "momentary lapse" in concentration. Just as being pictured here. When you are in your car you are in a killing machine, and need to pay proper attention. If you don't then it's not an accident, it's negligence.
[quote][p][bold]Chickenegg[/bold] wrote: I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police. I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.[/p][/quote]Exactly the attitude that causes so many accidents. Everyone who kills someone on the road seems to have a clean driving record, and it's put down to a "momentary lapse" in concentration. Just as being pictured here. When you are in your car you are in a killing machine, and need to pay proper attention. If you don't then it's not an accident, it's negligence. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

11:33am Sat 13 Apr 13

paul13 says...

FNS-man wrote:
Chickenegg wrote:
I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police.
I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.
Exactly the attitude that causes so many accidents. Everyone who kills someone on the road seems to have a clean driving record, and it's put down to a "momentary lapse" in concentration. Just as being pictured here. When you are in your car you are in a killing machine, and need to pay proper attention. If you don't then it's not an accident, it's negligence.
If you read chickeneggs post you will see that they were not condoning inattention on the roads, just stating hat not everything here is proof of inattention and that this form of jounalistic perscution proves nothing. Look to your own actions first, are you too close to the car in front, did you match your speed to the speed of other cars when usng a slip road, are you braking too hard, are you failing to give way when you can see another driver is trying to make a manouver?
I agree not paying attention negligence but we do not know if these drivers were paying attention.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chickenegg[/bold] wrote: I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police. I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.[/p][/quote]Exactly the attitude that causes so many accidents. Everyone who kills someone on the road seems to have a clean driving record, and it's put down to a "momentary lapse" in concentration. Just as being pictured here. When you are in your car you are in a killing machine, and need to pay proper attention. If you don't then it's not an accident, it's negligence.[/p][/quote]If you read chickeneggs post you will see that they were not condoning inattention on the roads, just stating hat not everything here is proof of inattention and that this form of jounalistic perscution proves nothing. Look to your own actions first, are you too close to the car in front, did you match your speed to the speed of other cars when usng a slip road, are you braking too hard, are you failing to give way when you can see another driver is trying to make a manouver? I agree not paying attention negligence but we do not know if these drivers were paying attention. paul13
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Sat 13 Apr 13

FNS-man says...

paul13 wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Chickenegg wrote:
I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police.
I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.
Exactly the attitude that causes so many accidents. Everyone who kills someone on the road seems to have a clean driving record, and it's put down to a "momentary lapse" in concentration. Just as being pictured here. When you are in your car you are in a killing machine, and need to pay proper attention. If you don't then it's not an accident, it's negligence.
If you read chickeneggs post you will see that they were not condoning inattention on the roads, just stating hat not everything here is proof of inattention and that this form of jounalistic perscution proves nothing. Look to your own actions first, are you too close to the car in front, did you match your speed to the speed of other cars when usng a slip road, are you braking too hard, are you failing to give way when you can see another driver is trying to make a manouver?
I agree not paying attention negligence but we do not know if these drivers were paying attention.
They are doing things that are deemed illegal. So probably safe to assume they are driving with less than the appropriate amount of care.

Further he states that people driving below the speed limit are causing accidents. May I remind him that the speed limit is an absolute maximum, and only applicable in perfect conditions. He really sounds like he has a poor attitude to safety.
[quote][p][bold]paul13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chickenegg[/bold] wrote: I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police. I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.[/p][/quote]Exactly the attitude that causes so many accidents. Everyone who kills someone on the road seems to have a clean driving record, and it's put down to a "momentary lapse" in concentration. Just as being pictured here. When you are in your car you are in a killing machine, and need to pay proper attention. If you don't then it's not an accident, it's negligence.[/p][/quote]If you read chickeneggs post you will see that they were not condoning inattention on the roads, just stating hat not everything here is proof of inattention and that this form of jounalistic perscution proves nothing. Look to your own actions first, are you too close to the car in front, did you match your speed to the speed of other cars when usng a slip road, are you braking too hard, are you failing to give way when you can see another driver is trying to make a manouver? I agree not paying attention negligence but we do not know if these drivers were paying attention.[/p][/quote]They are doing things that are deemed illegal. So probably safe to assume they are driving with less than the appropriate amount of care. Further he states that people driving below the speed limit are causing accidents. May I remind him that the speed limit is an absolute maximum, and only applicable in perfect conditions. He really sounds like he has a poor attitude to safety. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Sat 13 Apr 13

ragj195 says...

But there are often times when conditions are perfect and you still see drivers driving well below the speeds limit. The police do see this as causing a hazard and will often warn the driver.

When learning to drive I was told to drive just below the speed limit, not 50% of the speed limit. Failure to do so would be classed as a minor fail as it shows a lack of awareness of the road and speed limit. I would say that driving 30mph on a 60mph road as Chickenegg has highlighted is poor driving and if you did that during a driving test you would fail.
But there are often times when conditions are perfect and you still see drivers driving well below the speeds limit. The police do see this as causing a hazard and will often warn the driver. When learning to drive I was told to drive just below the speed limit, not 50% of the speed limit. Failure to do so would be classed as a minor fail as it shows a lack of awareness of the road and speed limit. I would say that driving 30mph on a 60mph road as Chickenegg has highlighted is poor driving and if you did that during a driving test you would fail. ragj195
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Sat 13 Apr 13

FNS-man says...

ragj195 wrote:
But there are often times when conditions are perfect and you still see drivers driving well below the speeds limit. The police do see this as causing a hazard and will often warn the driver.

When learning to drive I was told to drive just below the speed limit, not 50% of the speed limit. Failure to do so would be classed as a minor fail as it shows a lack of awareness of the road and speed limit. I would say that driving 30mph on a 60mph road as Chickenegg has highlighted is poor driving and if you did that during a driving test you would fail.
Poor driving maybe, but hardly dangerous. I'm struggling to find in the Highway Code where it says you must drive at a certain speed, except not exceeding the limit.
[quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: But there are often times when conditions are perfect and you still see drivers driving well below the speeds limit. The police do see this as causing a hazard and will often warn the driver. When learning to drive I was told to drive just below the speed limit, not 50% of the speed limit. Failure to do so would be classed as a minor fail as it shows a lack of awareness of the road and speed limit. I would say that driving 30mph on a 60mph road as Chickenegg has highlighted is poor driving and if you did that during a driving test you would fail.[/p][/quote]Poor driving maybe, but hardly dangerous. I'm struggling to find in the Highway Code where it says you must drive at a certain speed, except not exceeding the limit. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Sat 13 Apr 13

ragj195 says...

FNS-man wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
But there are often times when conditions are perfect and you still see drivers driving well below the speeds limit. The police do see this as causing a hazard and will often warn the driver.

When learning to drive I was told to drive just below the speed limit, not 50% of the speed limit. Failure to do so would be classed as a minor fail as it shows a lack of awareness of the road and speed limit. I would say that driving 30mph on a 60mph road as Chickenegg has highlighted is poor driving and if you did that during a driving test you would fail.
Poor driving maybe, but hardly dangerous. I'm struggling to find in the Highway Code where it says you must drive at a certain speed, except not exceeding the limit.
Fair enough but I was told the same thing when taking both my driving and motorcycle tests. You need to show that you are capable of driving according to the conditions. That means going 55 in a 60, not 30 and causing a hazard to other road users because of a lack of confidence.

Chickenegg didn't say "people driving below the speed limit" as per how you quoted him, he said "WAY below the speed limit". Totally different and not incorrect unless you think driving WAY below the speed limit is acceptable?
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: But there are often times when conditions are perfect and you still see drivers driving well below the speeds limit. The police do see this as causing a hazard and will often warn the driver. When learning to drive I was told to drive just below the speed limit, not 50% of the speed limit. Failure to do so would be classed as a minor fail as it shows a lack of awareness of the road and speed limit. I would say that driving 30mph on a 60mph road as Chickenegg has highlighted is poor driving and if you did that during a driving test you would fail.[/p][/quote]Poor driving maybe, but hardly dangerous. I'm struggling to find in the Highway Code where it says you must drive at a certain speed, except not exceeding the limit.[/p][/quote]Fair enough but I was told the same thing when taking both my driving and motorcycle tests. You need to show that you are capable of driving according to the conditions. That means going 55 in a 60, not 30 and causing a hazard to other road users because of a lack of confidence. Chickenegg didn't say "people driving below the speed limit" as per how you quoted him, he said "WAY below the speed limit". Totally different and not incorrect unless you think driving WAY below the speed limit is acceptable? ragj195
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Sat 13 Apr 13

paul13 says...

FNS-man wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
But there are often times when conditions are perfect and you still see drivers driving well below the speeds limit. The police do see this as causing a hazard and will often warn the driver.

When learning to drive I was told to drive just below the speed limit, not 50% of the speed limit. Failure to do so would be classed as a minor fail as it shows a lack of awareness of the road and speed limit. I would say that driving 30mph on a 60mph road as Chickenegg has highlighted is poor driving and if you did that during a driving test you would fail.
Poor driving maybe, but hardly dangerous. I'm struggling to find in the Highway Code where it says you must drive at a certain speed, except not exceeding the limit.
Poor driving creates a hazard for other road users that needs to be avoided, so dangerous. It clearly states in the highway code (Rule 144) You MUST NOT drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: But there are often times when conditions are perfect and you still see drivers driving well below the speeds limit. The police do see this as causing a hazard and will often warn the driver. When learning to drive I was told to drive just below the speed limit, not 50% of the speed limit. Failure to do so would be classed as a minor fail as it shows a lack of awareness of the road and speed limit. I would say that driving 30mph on a 60mph road as Chickenegg has highlighted is poor driving and if you did that during a driving test you would fail.[/p][/quote]Poor driving maybe, but hardly dangerous. I'm struggling to find in the Highway Code where it says you must drive at a certain speed, except not exceeding the limit.[/p][/quote]Poor driving creates a hazard for other road users that needs to be avoided, so dangerous. It clearly states in the highway code (Rule 144) You MUST NOT drive without reasonable consideration for other road users. paul13
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Sat 13 Apr 13

paul13 says...

paul13 wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
But there are often times when conditions are perfect and you still see drivers driving well below the speeds limit. The police do see this as causing a hazard and will often warn the driver.

When learning to drive I was told to drive just below the speed limit, not 50% of the speed limit. Failure to do so would be classed as a minor fail as it shows a lack of awareness of the road and speed limit. I would say that driving 30mph on a 60mph road as Chickenegg has highlighted is poor driving and if you did that during a driving test you would fail.
Poor driving maybe, but hardly dangerous. I'm struggling to find in the Highway Code where it says you must drive at a certain speed, except not exceeding the limit.
Poor driving creates a hazard for other road users that needs to be avoided, so dangerous. It clearly states in the highway code (Rule 144) You MUST NOT drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.
Interestingly, I also see that the highway code says that you should not smoke while driving.Rule 148.


Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as
•loud music (this may mask other sounds)
•trying to read maps
•inserting a cassette or CD or tuning a radio
•arguing with your passengers or other road users
•eating and drinking
•smoking
[quote][p][bold]paul13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: But there are often times when conditions are perfect and you still see drivers driving well below the speeds limit. The police do see this as causing a hazard and will often warn the driver. When learning to drive I was told to drive just below the speed limit, not 50% of the speed limit. Failure to do so would be classed as a minor fail as it shows a lack of awareness of the road and speed limit. I would say that driving 30mph on a 60mph road as Chickenegg has highlighted is poor driving and if you did that during a driving test you would fail.[/p][/quote]Poor driving maybe, but hardly dangerous. I'm struggling to find in the Highway Code where it says you must drive at a certain speed, except not exceeding the limit.[/p][/quote]Poor driving creates a hazard for other road users that needs to be avoided, so dangerous. It clearly states in the highway code (Rule 144) You MUST NOT drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.[/p][/quote]Interestingly, I also see that the highway code says that you should not smoke while driving.Rule 148. Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as •loud music (this may mask other sounds) •trying to read maps •inserting a cassette or CD or tuning a radio •arguing with your passengers or other road users •eating and drinking •smoking paul13
  • Score: 0

1:49am Sun 14 Apr 13

Chris the plumber says...

Chickenegg wrote:
I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police.
I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.
I can`t believe that some people think that a driver traveling at a lower speed
tha 60mph can me held responsible for a idiot overtaking them and killing someone and law abiding citizens traveling at 5mph over the speed limit are not `law abiding citizens..... here is praying that i dont meet a chicken or an egg whist on the road !
[quote][p][bold]Chickenegg[/bold] wrote: I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police. I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.[/p][/quote]I can`t believe that some people think that a driver traveling at a lower speed tha 60mph can me held responsible for a idiot overtaking them and killing someone and law abiding citizens traveling at 5mph over the speed limit are not `law abiding citizens..... here is praying that i dont meet a chicken or an egg whist on the road ! Chris the plumber
  • Score: 0

1:49am Sun 14 Apr 13

Chris the plumber says...

Chickenegg wrote:
I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police.
I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.
I can`t believe that some people think that a driver traveling at a lower speed
tha 60mph can me held responsible for a idiot overtaking them and killing someone and law abiding citizens traveling at 5mph over the speed limit are not `law abiding citizens..... here is praying that i dont meet a chicken or an egg whist on the road !
[quote][p][bold]Chickenegg[/bold] wrote: I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police. I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.[/p][/quote]I can`t believe that some people think that a driver traveling at a lower speed tha 60mph can me held responsible for a idiot overtaking them and killing someone and law abiding citizens traveling at 5mph over the speed limit are not `law abiding citizens..... here is praying that i dont meet a chicken or an egg whist on the road ! Chris the plumber
  • Score: 0

1:58am Sun 14 Apr 13

Chris the plumber says...

aerolover wrote:
Make you wonder why more people didn't die in the 60's when you didn't have to wear a seat belt and everyone ate while driving.
I agree with not being on the phone while driving but have something to eat or drink as long as you are thinking what you are doing is no big crime.
The next thing will be no music or opening the windows while driving. Perhaps we should stop everyone driving that would cut road deaths.
they did die in the 60`s in their 1000`s
1966 the worst year ever for road deaths nearly 8000 them we brought speed limits down, made seat belts the law to use, built safer cars and made it unsocial to drink and drive brought in the toting up system so that the licences of persistant offenders could be taken off them and in 2011 less than 2000 died on the roads.
[quote][p][bold]aerolover[/bold] wrote: Make you wonder why more people didn't die in the 60's when you didn't have to wear a seat belt and everyone ate while driving. I agree with not being on the phone while driving but have something to eat or drink as long as you are thinking what you are doing is no big crime. The next thing will be no music or opening the windows while driving. Perhaps we should stop everyone driving that would cut road deaths.[/p][/quote]they did die in the 60`s in their 1000`s 1966 the worst year ever for road deaths nearly 8000 them we brought speed limits down, made seat belts the law to use, built safer cars and made it unsocial to drink and drive brought in the toting up system so that the licences of persistant offenders could be taken off them and in 2011 less than 2000 died on the roads. Chris the plumber
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Sun 14 Apr 13

FNS-man says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
Chickenegg wrote:
I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police.
I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.
I can`t believe that some people think that a driver traveling at a lower speed
tha 60mph can me held responsible for a idiot overtaking them and killing someone and law abiding citizens traveling at 5mph over the speed limit are not `law abiding citizens..... here is praying that i dont meet a chicken or an egg whist on the road !
This is the mentality of a lot of people on the road, unfortunately. They can't see that a) the speed limit is not a target and b) breaking "minor" traffic laws is extremely dangerous and criminal.

Frankly if everyone who could caught the bus, walked or cycled to work then there would be a lot less congestion for the people who actually have to drive eg tradesmen, the emergency services, disabled people etc.
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chickenegg[/bold] wrote: I agree talking on your mobile can prove a slight distraction but eating crisps??!! This is less distracting then changing track on an iPod or radio stations and this is apparently fine. The only picture that really concerned me was the child without a seatbelt which should be dealt with severely by the police. I don't personally like crisps but certainly could be photographed eating the odd banana in my car and am unrepentant. I have an unblemished, accident free driving record. The real criminals are the banned drivers or unlicensed, the uninsured and the drunk or drugged. These are the real risk and they never seem to get caught. I think time is wasted picking on easy targets such as otherwise good, law abiding citizens who go 5 mile over limit or eat crisps!! Also, hesitance and driving way under the limit cause many accidents and this is never highlighted. Take the lethal A338 from Ringwood to fordingbridge- the majority of accidents on this road arose from frustrated drivers being forced to overtake inconsiderate drivers travelling way below the limit (60 mph for much of the road). This is never tackled and is inefficient and inconsiderate road use. Not to mention the amount of real crime that goes unsolved (I've personally been burgled and had my car broken into twice but no action has been taken by police). Lets not look at crisp eating drivers as public enemy number 1- let's get a little perspective and put our energies into catching the real criminals.[/p][/quote]I can`t believe that some people think that a driver traveling at a lower speed tha 60mph can me held responsible for a idiot overtaking them and killing someone and law abiding citizens traveling at 5mph over the speed limit are not `law abiding citizens..... here is praying that i dont meet a chicken or an egg whist on the road ![/p][/quote]This is the mentality of a lot of people on the road, unfortunately. They can't see that a) the speed limit is not a target and b) breaking "minor" traffic laws is extremely dangerous and criminal. Frankly if everyone who could caught the bus, walked or cycled to work then there would be a lot less congestion for the people who actually have to drive eg tradesmen, the emergency services, disabled people etc. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

4:51am Mon 15 Apr 13

Nigel Blumenthal says...

There's a difference between "stupidity", which is very subjective, and "illegal", which is, well, illegal, and should be clamped down on. Everyone knows that mobile phone use and texting in a car are against the law, and I have no idea why the police are so lax in penalising this dangerous behaviour. Whereas eating a sandwich, or the ubiquitous banana, really don't constitute much of a threat, especially if done responsibly. Echo, concentrate on the illegals, not so much on what you consider to be stupid. Not everyone would agree with your assessment.
There's a difference between "stupidity", which is very subjective, and "illegal", which is, well, illegal, and should be clamped down on. Everyone knows that mobile phone use and texting in a car are against the law, and I have no idea why the police are so lax in penalising this dangerous behaviour. Whereas eating a sandwich, or the ubiquitous banana, really don't constitute much of a threat, especially if done responsibly. Echo, concentrate on the illegals, not so much on what you consider to be stupid. Not everyone would agree with your assessment. Nigel Blumenthal
  • Score: 0

7:45am Mon 15 Apr 13

FNS-man says...

Nigel Blumenthal wrote:
There's a difference between "stupidity", which is very subjective, and "illegal", which is, well, illegal, and should be clamped down on. Everyone knows that mobile phone use and texting in a car are against the law, and I have no idea why the police are so lax in penalising this dangerous behaviour. Whereas eating a sandwich, or the ubiquitous banana, really don't constitute much of a threat, especially if done responsibly. Echo, concentrate on the illegals, not so much on what you consider to be stupid. Not everyone would agree with your assessment.
Yes, these things will probably cause a lapse in concentration for just a moment. What could go wrong?

http://www.herefordt
imes.com/news/474824
6.No_prison_for_driv
er_who_caused_death_
of_Hereford_cyclist/


http://www.thisislei
cestershire.co.uk/La
pse-attention-led-de
ath-cyclist-court/st
ory-13697884-detail/
story.html#axzz2QVnJ
5P2b

http://www.thisisdor
set.co.uk/Sherborne-
man-pleads-guilty-ca
using-death-cyclist/
story-18543882-detai
l/story.html#axzz2QV
nKUHU9
[quote][p][bold]Nigel Blumenthal[/bold] wrote: There's a difference between "stupidity", which is very subjective, and "illegal", which is, well, illegal, and should be clamped down on. Everyone knows that mobile phone use and texting in a car are against the law, and I have no idea why the police are so lax in penalising this dangerous behaviour. Whereas eating a sandwich, or the ubiquitous banana, really don't constitute much of a threat, especially if done responsibly. Echo, concentrate on the illegals, not so much on what you consider to be stupid. Not everyone would agree with your assessment.[/p][/quote]Yes, these things will probably cause a lapse in concentration for just a moment. What could go wrong? http://www.herefordt imes.com/news/474824 6.No_prison_for_driv er_who_caused_death_ of_Hereford_cyclist/ http://www.thisislei cestershire.co.uk/La pse-attention-led-de ath-cyclist-court/st ory-13697884-detail/ story.html#axzz2QVnJ 5P2b http://www.thisisdor set.co.uk/Sherborne- man-pleads-guilty-ca using-death-cyclist/ story-18543882-detai l/story.html#axzz2QV nKUHU9 FNS-man
  • Score: 0

10:04am Tue 16 Apr 13

Mamma Troll says...

Hmmm, it seems that echo didn't like my comments,and have removed them!
don't know why because they were inoffensive, concise and to the point.
maybe it was the subject matter?
own house in order, sort of thing, echo drivers being the best drivers out there!

I don't believe for one second,that this is a case of pot kettle,kettle pot............
Hmmm, it seems that echo didn't like my comments,and have removed them! don't know why because they were inoffensive, concise and to the point. maybe it was the subject matter? own house in order, sort of thing, echo drivers being the best drivers out there! I don't believe for one second,that this is a case of pot kettle,kettle pot............ Mamma Troll
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Tue 16 Apr 13

Sam Shepherd says...

Mamma Troll wrote:
Hmmm, it seems that echo didn't like my comments,and have removed them!
don't know why because they were inoffensive, concise and to the point.
maybe it was the subject matter?
own house in order, sort of thing, echo drivers being the best drivers out there!

I don't believe for one second,that this is a case of pot kettle,kettle pot............
Hi. Which comment are you referring to?

Is it this one? "of course your own house is in order, is it not echo?
And with that in mind we will be photographing all your drivers, just to make sure than no offences take place."

Because that's still where you posted it, on the other story about the coach driver...

If not, please let us know so we can fix it!
[quote][p][bold]Mamma Troll[/bold] wrote: Hmmm, it seems that echo didn't like my comments,and have removed them! don't know why because they were inoffensive, concise and to the point. maybe it was the subject matter? own house in order, sort of thing, echo drivers being the best drivers out there! I don't believe for one second,that this is a case of pot kettle,kettle pot............[/p][/quote]Hi. Which comment are you referring to? Is it this one? "of course your own house is in order, is it not echo? And with that in mind we will be photographing all your drivers, just to make sure than no offences take place." Because that's still where you posted it, on the other story about the coach driver... If not, please let us know so we can fix it! Sam Shepherd
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Tue 16 Apr 13

retry69 says...

Look MrPitiful and Mamma Troll, Ms Shepherd has more important things to do than chase arround explaining thigs to you both.Your usernames explain it all to us so just move on PLEASE
Look MrPitiful and Mamma Troll, Ms Shepherd has more important things to do than chase arround explaining thigs to you both.Your usernames explain it all to us so just move on PLEASE retry69
  • Score: 0

7:49am Thu 18 Apr 13

Trog-01 says...

I am a biker, I ride my white honda St1100 every day and every chance I get, and sad to say I see this kind of thing EVERY day. Just yesterday, I saw a man driving a black Audi A4 through Basingstoke with an apple tablet being held on the steering wheel while he was driving...
I am a biker, I ride my white honda St1100 every day and every chance I get, and sad to say I see this kind of thing EVERY day. Just yesterday, I saw a man driving a black Audi A4 through Basingstoke with an apple tablet being held on the steering wheel while he was driving... Trog-01
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Dont drop litter says...

Whilst I agree with the motives of the Echo I don't think that it is their position to go on this sort of crusade.
Showing potentially incriminating photographs of members of the public is an infringement of Human Rights Laws and may well land The Bournemouth Echo in trouble.
I don't subscribe to the usual Human Rights rubbish but not even the Police can publish photos of this sort and its the reason that GATSO cameras take photos of the back of a car.
Whilst I agree with the motives of the Echo I don't think that it is their position to go on this sort of crusade. Showing potentially incriminating photographs of members of the public is an infringement of Human Rights Laws and may well land The Bournemouth Echo in trouble. I don't subscribe to the usual Human Rights rubbish but not even the Police can publish photos of this sort and its the reason that GATSO cameras take photos of the back of a car. Dont drop litter
  • Score: 0

10:24pm Thu 18 Apr 13

FNS-man says...

Dont drop litter wrote:
Whilst I agree with the motives of the Echo I don't think that it is their position to go on this sort of crusade.
Showing potentially incriminating photographs of members of the public is an infringement of Human Rights Laws and may well land The Bournemouth Echo in trouble.
I don't subscribe to the usual Human Rights rubbish but not even the Police can publish photos of this sort and its the reason that GATSO cameras take photos of the back of a car.
This is the funniest comment I have read for ages. Brilliant.
[quote][p][bold]Dont drop litter[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree with the motives of the Echo I don't think that it is their position to go on this sort of crusade. Showing potentially incriminating photographs of members of the public is an infringement of Human Rights Laws and may well land The Bournemouth Echo in trouble. I don't subscribe to the usual Human Rights rubbish but not even the Police can publish photos of this sort and its the reason that GATSO cameras take photos of the back of a car.[/p][/quote]This is the funniest comment I have read for ages. Brilliant. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

10:25pm Thu 18 Apr 13

FNS-man says...

FNS-man wrote:
Dont drop litter wrote:
Whilst I agree with the motives of the Echo I don't think that it is their position to go on this sort of crusade.
Showing potentially incriminating photographs of members of the public is an infringement of Human Rights Laws and may well land The Bournemouth Echo in trouble.
I don't subscribe to the usual Human Rights rubbish but not even the Police can publish photos of this sort and its the reason that GATSO cameras take photos of the back of a car.
This is the funniest comment I have read for ages. Brilliant.
I think I'm going to send it to Speak You're Branes.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dont drop litter[/bold] wrote: Whilst I agree with the motives of the Echo I don't think that it is their position to go on this sort of crusade. Showing potentially incriminating photographs of members of the public is an infringement of Human Rights Laws and may well land The Bournemouth Echo in trouble. I don't subscribe to the usual Human Rights rubbish but not even the Police can publish photos of this sort and its the reason that GATSO cameras take photos of the back of a car.[/p][/quote]This is the funniest comment I have read for ages. Brilliant.[/p][/quote]I think I'm going to send it to Speak You're Branes. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Sun 21 Apr 13

Streamer says...

In response to various other comments about the photographs of drivers taken by an Echo photographer:

1. “Clutching at straws spring to mind and again may I point out that the word "accident" no longer applies to incidents that involve motorists for a very good reason, 99.9% of these incidents are due to driver error.”

The English language has four words with quite different meanings:

An incident is something that happens – nothing more, nothing less.

An accident is when something happens that was not intended.

A collision occurs when two moving objects hit each other.

When a moving object hits a stationary one, that impact is an allision.

Driver error is just one cause of road traffic accidents. Allisions and collisions – unless deliberate – are still accidents.

Yet we now have – thanks to the likes of the Gwent Police and Richard Brunstrom, former Chief Constable of North Wales and called the Mad Mullah of the Traffic Taliban – the stupid phrase “single vehicle collision”, also “road traffic incidents”. The only time when there might be a single vehicle collision is when a vehicle hits a pedestrian or an animal. A car running out of fuel is a road traffic incident.

Such Orwellian newspeak has no place in what is supposed to be part of the free world. Or have the UK Thought Police taken over compiling English dictionaries?

2. “The one thing that is really shocking to me is how many people seem to think this sort of behaviour is okay!! When you are driving a car the ONLY activity you should be undertaking is being responsible for driving your car.”

A driver is also responsible for the safety of any passengers. That often means children. To say that the only activity a driver should undertake is being responsible for driving the vehicle ignores real life. As do many laws.

3. “If you want to eat or drink or read or talk on the phone or let your kids/pets run wild then fine. But at least have decency enough to pull over and do it while safely parked at the side of the road. There is absolutely no reasonable excuse for performing any of these activities while you're in control of a heavy, motorised machine!”

The law says it is lawful to use a hands-free phone, even though the driver using one will be thinking of what he or she is talking about, and not totally about what is happening on the road. The driver will be picturing things talked about, not seeing what is happening on the road. Just because hands-free phones are legal does not mean they are safe.

Incidentally, police motorcyclists have microphones and earpieces in their helmets so that they can listen to
and talk to other police officers while on the move. They are taking their minds off the road just as much as is the smoker, the sandwich eater, the CD changer. Yet such distractions are not illegal; in fact they are taught as part of being a police motorcyclist.


4. “Have you ever experienced a sudden front wheel deflation even at 50mph? It rips the steering wheel
from your hand without warning causing the vehicle to change course. 2 seconds later it has collided with
another vehicle, a road sign or crash barrier, your car spins around as it screeches to a stop, and then the
lorry driver who was following behind fails to stop in time and T-bones your car.”

Yes, I have had a sudden front wheel deflation – at 70 mph. (And a rear wheel one at 60 mph in a van) The steering wheel was not ripped from my hands. So it looks as if there was some other cause than just a blow-out for what happened in this accident.

Perhaps some of the people posting so angrily on this site would like to spend all their working days behind the wheel, either in urban traffic or on long distance journeys, on fine days or on wet, on calm or on windy – when there are bosses demanding on time arrival of buses, coaches and lorries. What is more dangerous: having a smoke or craving one? Having a sip from a soft drink bottle or having a parched mouth in mid-summer heat? Changing a radio programme or changing gear?

5. “ alanrr wrote: ‘blimey I take my hand of the wheel all the time .......when I change gear.....’ Seeing as that's part of the operation of the vehicle it's legally fine.’ 'Clever' pedantry is seldom anything but.”

It is not the legality or illegality of an action that makes it safe or not, sensible or not, right or not. It is the action itself. Too many people live by the law instead of by doing what is right. The law is only what it says it is. Yesterday it may have been different; tomorrow it may be different from today. That is not to say that yesterday’s, today’s or tomorrow’s laws are just, logical or fair. And that applies to traffic laws as much as it does to who may marry whom.

6. “Further he states that people driving below the speed limit are causing accidents. May I remind him that the speed limit is an absolute maximum, and only applicable in perfect conditions. He really sounds like he has a poor attitude to safety.”

Speed limits are arbitrary, based solely on ten mph increments. They are the same 24 hours a day, regardless of the traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, and the weather, etc. They are a very blunt instrument. No wonder they are ignored.

7. “ ‘I would say that driving 30mph on a 60mph road as Chickenegg has highlighted is poor driving and if you did that during a driving test you would fail.’ Poor driving maybe, but hardly dangerous. I'm struggling to find in the Highway Code where it says you must drive at a certain speed, except not exceeding the limit.”

The Highway Code – except where it is backed up by actual laws – is only advisory. That is why it is not called The Highway Law. When all the traffic on a road or motorway is travelling at around 60 mph, it is blatantly dangerous for a vehicle expected to be travelling with the rest to be doing half that speed. That is why slow moving vehicles now have flashing yellow lights.

8. “I don't subscribe to the usual Human Rights rubbish but not even the Police can publish photos of this sort and it’s the reason that GATSO cameras take photos of the back of a car.”

The new types of speed cameras can face either way. And hand-held radar guns are used on approaching as well as departing vehicles. The only reason the original GATSO film cameras took pictures of the backs of vehicles was that they used flash both by day and night – and taking flash pictures that might distract or temporarily blind drivers is not a good idea.

And finally: after the accident in Castle Lane West on 20 Apr 2013, I asked a policeman why a camera on Wessex Way has a permanent “out of use” bag over it. His reply was it is quite possibly because the number of accidents in the area had dropped below the minimum required to have it operating. Work that one out.
In response to various other comments about the photographs of drivers taken by an Echo photographer: 1. “Clutching at straws spring to mind and again may I point out that the word "accident" no longer applies to incidents that involve motorists for a very good reason, 99.9% of these incidents are due to driver error.” The English language has four words with quite different meanings: An incident is something that happens – nothing more, nothing less. An accident is when something happens that was not intended. A collision occurs when two moving objects hit each other. When a moving object hits a stationary one, that impact is an allision. Driver error is just one cause of road traffic accidents. Allisions and collisions – unless deliberate – are still accidents. Yet we now have – thanks to the likes of the Gwent Police and Richard Brunstrom, former Chief Constable of North Wales and called the Mad Mullah of the Traffic Taliban – the stupid phrase “single vehicle collision”, also “road traffic incidents”. The only time when there might be a single vehicle collision is when a vehicle hits a pedestrian or an animal. A car running out of fuel is a road traffic incident. Such Orwellian newspeak has no place in what is supposed to be part of the free world. Or have the UK Thought Police taken over compiling English dictionaries? 2. “The one thing that is really shocking to me is how many people seem to think this sort of behaviour is okay!! When you are driving a car the ONLY activity you should be undertaking is being responsible for driving your car.” A driver is also responsible for the safety of any passengers. That often means children. To say that the only activity a driver should undertake is being responsible for driving the vehicle ignores real life. As do many laws. 3. “If you want to eat or drink or read or talk on the phone or let your kids/pets run wild then fine. But at least have decency enough to pull over and do it while safely parked at the side of the road. There is absolutely no reasonable excuse for performing any of these activities while you're in control of a heavy, motorised machine!” The law says it is lawful to use a hands-free phone, even though the driver using one will be thinking of what he or she is talking about, and not totally about what is happening on the road. The driver will be picturing things talked about, not seeing what is happening on the road. Just because hands-free phones are legal does not mean they are safe. Incidentally, police motorcyclists have microphones and earpieces in their helmets so that they can listen to and talk to other police officers while on the move. They are taking their minds off the road just as much as is the smoker, the sandwich eater, the CD changer. Yet such distractions are not illegal; in fact they are taught as part of being a police motorcyclist. 4. “Have you ever experienced a sudden front wheel deflation even at 50mph? It rips the steering wheel from your hand without warning causing the vehicle to change course. 2 seconds later it has collided with another vehicle, a road sign or crash barrier, your car spins around as it screeches to a stop, and then the lorry driver who was following behind fails to stop in time and T-bones your car.” Yes, I have had a sudden front wheel deflation – at 70 mph. (And a rear wheel one at 60 mph in a van) The steering wheel was not ripped from my hands. So it looks as if there was some other cause than just a blow-out for what happened in this accident. Perhaps some of the people posting so angrily on this site would like to spend all their working days behind the wheel, either in urban traffic or on long distance journeys, on fine days or on wet, on calm or on windy – when there are bosses demanding on time arrival of buses, coaches and lorries. What is more dangerous: having a smoke or craving one? Having a sip from a soft drink bottle or having a parched mouth in mid-summer heat? Changing a radio programme or changing gear? 5. “ alanrr wrote: ‘blimey I take my hand of the wheel all the time .......when I change gear.....’ Seeing as that's part of the operation of the vehicle it's legally fine.’ 'Clever' pedantry is seldom anything but.” It is not the legality or illegality of an action that makes it safe or not, sensible or not, right or not. It is the action itself. Too many people live by the law instead of by doing what is right. The law is only what it says it is. Yesterday it may have been different; tomorrow it may be different from today. That is not to say that yesterday’s, today’s or tomorrow’s laws are just, logical or fair. And that applies to traffic laws as much as it does to who may marry whom. 6. “Further he states that people driving below the speed limit are causing accidents. May I remind him that the speed limit is an absolute maximum, and only applicable in perfect conditions. He really sounds like he has a poor attitude to safety.” Speed limits are arbitrary, based solely on ten mph increments. They are the same 24 hours a day, regardless of the traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, and the weather, etc. They are a very blunt instrument. No wonder they are ignored. 7. “ ‘I would say that driving 30mph on a 60mph road as Chickenegg has highlighted is poor driving and if you did that during a driving test you would fail.’ Poor driving maybe, but hardly dangerous. I'm struggling to find in the Highway Code where it says you must drive at a certain speed, except not exceeding the limit.” The Highway Code – except where it is backed up by actual laws – is only advisory. That is why it is not called The Highway Law. When all the traffic on a road or motorway is travelling at around 60 mph, it is blatantly dangerous for a vehicle expected to be travelling with the rest to be doing half that speed. That is why slow moving vehicles now have flashing yellow lights. 8. “I don't subscribe to the usual Human Rights rubbish but not even the Police can publish photos of this sort and it’s the reason that GATSO cameras take photos of the back of a car.” The new types of speed cameras can face either way. And hand-held radar guns are used on approaching as well as departing vehicles. The only reason the original GATSO film cameras took pictures of the backs of vehicles was that they used flash both by day and night – and taking flash pictures that might distract or temporarily blind drivers is not a good idea. And finally: after the accident in Castle Lane West on 20 Apr 2013, I asked a policeman why a camera on Wessex Way has a permanent “out of use” bag over it. His reply was it is quite possibly because the number of accidents in the area had dropped below the minimum required to have it operating. Work that one out. Streamer
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree