Heard this reported on BBC Radio News tonight.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0elsNDRqLtQ&feature=youtu.be
What does the panel think?
|
About which one?
The cereal eater, clearly not a good idea and should get a tug if the plod spotted her. There's distractions and there is being stupid.
The wally with the camera, he needs a word with himself and wind his neck in. 'Your on camera and reported to the police' Honestly do these people actually listen to themselves?
|
>> The wally with the camera, he needs a word with himself and wind his neck
>> in. 'Your on camera and reported to the police' Honestly do these people actually listen
>> to themselves?
There's a bit of me that says why bother unless she's actually endangered you but OTOH how many who sound off generally about other road users' behaviour are actually affected.
|
What an officious, self-important little prick.
I bet he wouldn't have gone near it if it'd been a van load of blokes.
|
OTOH how many who sound off generally about other road users' behaviour are actually affected.
>>
No idea, but there's probably plenty of wallys with cameras like on your link. It was cringeworthy, mind you they are probably so full of themselves they don't even realise.
|
On this very forum from 2011....
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=7142&m=159032
Must be a Range Rover / Land Rover thing!?
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 17 Jun 15 at 21:24
|
|
I have had a look at a few of these self appointed driving standard inspectors videos. While I am no expert their own road use often could do with some improvement.
|
Funny old world.
I'm guessing most people think that eating a bowl of cereal while driving is stupid and I'm fairly sure it's an offence, but the bloke who names and shames her, peacefully and without any e***** and jeffing, is lambasted for it.
Not sure I could have been bothered myself, but it seems like a reasonable response to me - not OTT or threatening, just a citizen having his say.
Maybe it's because he is a cyclist...:)
|
>> Maybe it's because he is a cyclist...:)
>>
More that he's some sort of self appointed jobsworth. And no he didn't swear but was still irritating.
|
>>
>> >> Maybe it's because he is a cyclist...:)
>> >>
>>
>> More that he's some sort of self appointed jobsworth. And no he didn't swear but
>> was still irritating.
>>
Sounds like The Blame Reversal Technique at work.
The Scots Porage Oats* woman was the one at fault, not the cyclist.
O.k. perhaps the cyclist was a bit gobby, but he wasn't the offender.
*Other breakfast cereals are available.
|
>> Sounds like The Blame Reversal Technique at work.
>>
>> The Scots Porage Oats* woman was the one at fault, not the cyclist.
>>
>> O.k. perhaps the cyclist was a bit gobby, but he wasn't the offender.
my earlier post said that the women was unsafe and stupid.
No fancy techniques at all, perfectly possible for 2 people to be in the wrong at the same time.
|
>> More that he's some sort of self appointed jobsworth.
How can you be a self appointed jobsworth?
>>And no he didn't swear but
>> was still irritating.
...because he is a cyclist :)
|
Now, I think getting someone to dump cereal over themselves is funny. I might do the same if I could. Its like stepping on the brakes very briefly in slow traffic to see just how far the bloke behind can get his finger up his nose in an emergency.
Its not the same as officious t*** syndrome.
|
>> Its not the same as officious t*** syndrome.
Are you sure about that?
Both look like methods of self gratification to me.
|
Well, look at it like this..
If you hit the brakes or blow your horn and get me to dump my cereal in my lap, then I shall probably laugh, or at least suffer a dose of self-mocking.
If you bang on my window and in an officious manner tell me to put my cereal down or you'll report me to the police I shall probably get out of the car and punch you. Probably hard and probably more than once.
So yes, I am quite sure.
|
>>Both look like methods of self gratification to me.
I was stationary with no where to go. She was about to drive in to me so I had to sound the horn.
The consequences were funny but certainly not deliberate!
|
>>What does the panel think?
1) He takes the video to the police and reports her.
This is the action of a man concerned about safety. And whether he is right or wrong, he is at least doing what he thinks to be the right thing.
2) He bangs on her window, he gives her orders, he stops to tell the woman in the car behind, he posts it on YouTube.
This is the action of a self-important, small-minded-officious, attention seeking tit.
|
>> 1) He takes the video to the police and reports her.
>>
>> This is the action of a man concerned about safety.
But not concerned enough to stop her immediately, possibly preventing her from running over and killing someone 100yds down the road?
(Just playing devil's advocate - I agree with you.)
|
>>1) He takes the video to the police and reports her.
Agreed, but will they do anything?
|
>> >>1) He takes the video to the police and reports her.
>>
>> Agreed, but will they do anything?
Generally no, but if there's a media campaign they might.
|
Hampton Court Way was my commute for many many years and I was on that route this morning.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33168986
A driver caught on camera eating a bowl of cereal is being investigated by police.
A suspect area ?
Just half a mile away over the bridge.
Cardinal Wolsey landlord 'killed customer with ironing board'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-33154488
www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/rich-eccentric-crushed-death-van-9474883
|
>> Hampton Court Way was my commute for many many years and I was on that
>> route this morning.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33168986
>> A driver caught on camera eating a bowl of cereal is being investigated by police.
Pedant Corner.
That is East Molesey, Surrey in the Borough of Elmbridge.
NOT London.
|
Cardinal Wolsey landlord 'killed customer with ironing board'.
"Oi! You can't bring vat fing in 'ere!"
S'funny, don't remember that scene in the TV adaptation. Will have to dig out the book and see where La Mantel slipped it in.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Thu 18 Jun 15 at 07:06
|
>> Agreed, but will they do anything?
With any luck, they'll say Cheerio to him.
|
>> What does the panel think?
She is stupid.
He is a bully, as No FM2R said, he wouldn't have done that to a van full of builders, would he?
|
>> What does the panel think?
>>
He was lucky he didn't wear a bowl of cereal + milk.
|
He is a bully, as No FM2R said, he wouldn't have done that to a van full of builders, would he?
That doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter for this point whether he's wrong or right, but suppose he feels he is right and that he has to make the point, thinking better of it when outnumbered and faced with the prospect of a violent reaction doesn't make him a bully, especially given the minor nature of the offence. Would you say the same thing if the offender had been stealing from a handbag - that he's a 'bully' if he picks a contest he can win but avoids one where people, not just himself, might get hurt?
|
>> That doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter for this point whether he's wrong or right,
>> but suppose he feels he is right and that he has to make the point,
>> thinking better of it when outnumbered and faced with the prospect of a violent reaction
>> doesn't make him a bully,
It does to me.
'I'm going to assert myself, but only to those that I can intimidate'.
>> Would you say the same thing if the offender had been stealing from a handbag
No, i'd expect a decent human being to step in if there was a crime.
|
>>That doesn't make sense. ...
It does really...
If he wanted to report it to the police, then that is up to him, and perhaps he'd do that whoever was in the vehicle.
But what was his point in speaking to the cereal woman? And then to the car behind?
Because he was a snivelling, self-important tit smugly seeking approval. And *that* is the bit he wouldn't have done if the vehicle had been full of blokes.
|
Exactly my point, and he would not have dared do it if he hadn't been safe in the knowledge of his helmet cam, which of course the other parties may not immediately been aware of.
Provoke an argument, bring out the worst in others, post it on Facebook and You Tube and hey Presto, we have an instant hero!
Pat
|
|
OK, doesn't sound admirable, I agree. S'pose it might be clearer if I actually watched the video.
|
>> Exactly my point, and he would not have dared do it if he hadn't been
>> safe in the knowledge of his helmet cam, which of course the other parties may
>> not immediately been aware of.
I'm sorry Pat but that's not the case. Cyclists have been verbally challenging dangerous drivers at least as long as I've been in the urban riding game - nearly 40 yrs.
I've seen the odd pedestrian have a go too.
|
Of course, people have been having a go at people for ever.
But I absolutely believe the occurrence of such idiot cyclist vigilantes has dramatically increased with the advent of a camera on the head.
|
>> But I absolutely believe the occurrence of such idiot cyclist vigilantes has dramatically increased with
>> the advent of a camera on the head.
Pat asserted that the challenge would not have happened without a headcam. I suggested it would and that such things have gone on for years.
Whether you call them idiot vigilantes or safety campaigners (and the terms are not mutually exclusive) the advent of you tube and cheap featherweight video cameras give an opportunity for publicity that wasn't there before.
Not unique to cyclists - there's plenty of dash cam footage out there.
|
>>Whether you call them idiot vigilantes or safety campaigners.....
To repeat....
"1) He takes the video to the police and reports her.
This is the action of a man concerned about safety. And whether he is right or wrong, he is at least doing what he thinks to be the right thing.
2) He bangs on her window, he gives her orders, he stops to tell the woman in the car behind, he posts it on YouTube.
This is the action of a self-important, small-minded-officious, attention seeking tit. "
|
>> To repeat.
Or to go back to the analogy of other crime, say vandalism:
(1) Draws public attention to the crime and insists the perp desists
(2) Reports it to police with video evidence
(3) Puts it in public domain 'pour encourager les autres'
Only because he's on two wheels he becomes an attention seeking tit.
Do you apply the same 'ast' label to the dash cam motorist who's film of a an idiot cyclist riding no hands and texting on a busy London street is in today's news?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 19 Jun 15 at 14:32
|
|
Yes. Or pedestrians, or lorries, or any other similar tit.
|
|
P.s. you really will attempt to justify absolutely anything just as long as a cyclist did it, won't you.
|
>> P.s. you really will attempt to justify absolutely anything just as long as a cyclist
>> did it, won't you.
Do you understand the difference between justify and explain, or perhaps just the presentation of an alternative perspective?
I pointed out to Pat that, contrary to her post, cyclists have been challenging dangerous drivers for years. It's not a phenomenon that came with mini digicams.
You then stuck your oar in by reposting an earlier (provocative) post from Wednesday.
This is a discussion forum. The idea is we talk about stuff; not just fall in behind, or be intimidated into silence by, the 'big beasts'.
|
>Do you understand the difference between justify and explain
Certainly. Which one do you need help with?
>>You then stuck your oar in
"stuck my oar in" Simon? I thought it was a discussion forum. Perhaps you could in future indicate which ones you consider are private and which ones may be joined in with.
And in any case, surely "reposting an earlier (provocative) post from Wednesday" doesn't count as sticking my oar in since it was a direct reply to YOUR note addressed TO ME.
And "provocative"? Presumably only to "a self-important, small-minded-officious, attention seeking tit", why would anyone else find it provocative?
Anyway, why are you giving me a resume of a thread that I am quite obviously already reading. If I do have a doubt, I can always re-read it., No need for you to go to all the effort of a blow by blow summary.
>>This is a discussion forum. The idea is we talk about stuff;
Ah, well, you do know.
>> be intimidated into silence by, the 'big beasts'.
I don't really understand that. Do you mean me intimidating you, or someone intimidating the cyclist or what? If you do mean me intimidating you, then by all means post a little note in when you feel intimidated and I'll make sure I'm nice and gentle with you.
And isn't this all a little bit "playing the man" as you like to say?
|
>> he wouldn't have done that to a van full of builders, would he?
He also wouldn't have done it if he didn't have a helmet cam to show off later via youtube.
|
Helmet cam or dashcam just equals 'I don't need a backbone' these days
Pat
|
>> Helmet cam or dashcam just equals 'I don't need a backbone' these days
>>
>> Pat
I am baffled by that too!
|
>> Helmet cam or dashcam just equals 'I don't need a backbone' these days
My dashcam proved its worth when my car was clipped by a van. Van driver claimed "didn't touch you mate". Changed his mind when I pointed out the camera.
|
>> He also wouldn't have done it if he didn't have a helmet cam to show
>> off later via youtube.
And you know that how?
|
>> And you know that how?
Similarily, how would you he would?
That helmet cam obviously makes him judge and jury of the road. You've only got to check out some of his other clips to see that.
|
They do real cyclists no favours.
tinyurl.com/orovmwu
(Daily Mail)
|
>> They do real cyclists no favours.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/orovmwu
>>
>> (Daily Mail)
And that article does journalism no favours. How much is Vine paid for a clump of cliche like that?
|
|
Cliche? I don't know about that, but it gets fairly close to my views on these smug vigilantes.
|
Not worth a thread of its own, but there won't be much lycra in Cambridge tomorrow.
Think I'll do my shopping somewhere else this week.
www.cambridge-news.co.uk/World-Naked-Bike-Ride-Cambridge-preparing-global/story-26723983-detail/story.html
On the subject of photographs though, Mr Brown added: "There is an expectation people will take photos as we're cycling and we are completely fine with that.
"All we would ask is if people could not take pictures when cyclists are either getting dressed or undressed.
"We may be naked but we still expect a degree of privacy."
Last edited by: Crankcase on Fri 19 Jun 15 at 10:31
|
>> "All we would ask is if people could not take pictures when cyclists are either
>> getting dressed or undressed.
>>
>> "We may be naked but we still expect a degree of privacy."
In other words, he doesn't want anyone to see his crusty y-fronts.
|
Is it a good idea to cycle naked?
Will they have a helmet?
|
>> Will they have a helmet?
>>
Some will, some won't.
|
>> And "reversing sensors"?
;-)
|
>> Is it a good idea to cycle naked?
>>
There's not a lot of difference between naked, and wearing lycra...
|
>> There's not a lot of difference between naked, and wearing lycra...
Ah, been to Tesco late on a Friday evening, huh?
|
|
I am disappointed to see that more bile has been poured over the smug, vigilante cyclist (yes, as maddening as the self-righteous Grauniadisti) than over the barmy, dangerous motorist. Using both hands to eat a bowl of cereal must be as dangerous as texting at the wheel - and should carry a similar 10-year ban for rank stupidity.
|
|
Well if that ain't near enough exactly my thoughts, Haywain.
|
Some may remember the silly rhyme I posted in a previous thread on this theme:
How can he be texting at 90
(However prehensile his legs)
When he's smoking a doobie,
Tooting a line,
Feeling his girl up,
Mulling some wine
And frying his bacon and eggs?
Seems to be the case that some drivers are very good at multi-tasking at the wheel and switching their attention very quickly and surely back and forth, while others are lethally unpredictable even when they are trying to concentrate on driving alone.
Reckon I'm somewhere in the middle and slowly declining with age. It's very rare for a cyclist to give me any lip and when they do they are nearly always wrong and making a fuss about nothing.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 19 Jun 15 at 15:20
|
Seems to be the case that some drivers are very good at multi-tasking at the wheel and switching their attention very quickly and surely back and forth, while others are lethally unpredictable even when they are trying to concentrate on driving alone.
Absolutely, some driver are terrifying even when just talking to a passenger. One person I know, I'll never ever accept a lift from again! How he's not hit every other road user, lord only knows. (Although the experienced motorist sees the poor control and keeps further away).
|
Seems to be the case that some drivers are very good at multi-tasking at the wheel...
No. No-one is, and not just when driving. What we can do is judge when we can afford to divert our attention from driving (or ironing, soldering, whatever) to watch TV, contribute to a conversation, select a different track from the iPod. But we're only doing one thing at a time, and we're not doing either thing as well as if we weren't dividing our attention at all.
Of course, nobody can concentrate 100 per cent of the time either; that would be mentally exhausting, and music, conversation or pub cricket can provide the little mental breaks that leave us fresh enough to deal with those situations that do require full concentration. But claiming that you can multitask and drive is a self-delusion similar to insisting that you're fit to drive after half a dozen drinks. You may not notice that you're driving badly, but others will.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Fri 19 Jun 15 at 15:59
|
>> >> some drivers are very good at multi-tasking at the wheel...
>> No. No-one is, and not just when driving. What we can do is judge when we can afford to divert our attention from driving (or ironing, soldering, whatever) to watch TV, contribute to a conversation, select a different track from the iPod. But we're only doing one thing at a time, and we're not doing either thing as well as if we weren't dividing our attention at all.
Yes. I said 'switching their attention very quickly and surely from one thing to another' or words to that effect. I added that I am getting worse at it with age.
|
|
We all have risky moments of inattention. But there are very few bad accidents considering. Amazingly few considering all these drunk drivers and so on.
|
I said 'switching their attention very quickly and surely from one thing to another'...
You said 'multitasking...and switching...' as if these were two different things. There's only the latter; multitasking is illusory.
|
"Seems to be the case that some drivers are very good at multi-tasking.................."
RAF fast-jet pilots are brilliant at multi-tasking and maintaining concentration - but they are specially selected and trained for their job whereas almost any twerp can get behind the wheel of a car.
|
>>over the barmy, dangerous motorist. Using both hands to eat a bowl of cereal must be as dangerous as texting at the wheel
Well, perhaps. Barmy seems likely, but dangerous? Depends what kind of jam I assume.
I was doing a killer sudoku in the drivers seat of the car this morning. In fact I almost finished it before the traffic finally moved. I ate a marmite sandwich as well.
|
"I was doing a killer sudoku in the drivers seat of the car this morning. In fact I almost finished it before the traffic finally moved. I ate a marmite sandwich as well."
Genius - pure genius - but, I think we already knew that.
|
|
You see, you just don't understand the importance of a marmite sandwich. Try living without marmite. Talk about a 3rd world existence.
|
"the importance of a marmite sandwich."
I understand the importance of Marmite - but only on warm toast. On bread, it's like eating it raw.
|
|
A reasonable point, but the car toaster is broken.
|
"the car toaster is broken."
The thought of a 12v car toaster, slowly drying your bread!
I've got a 12v kettle, but I carry a flask of hot water to give it a start. From a 'cold' start, you'd die of thirst before you got a cup of tea!
|
|
That and the fact that it kept falling off the dashboard every time I went around a roundabout.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-33186345
Fusillade of invective from Mrs Gove awaited. Camera happy vigilantes interfering with law-abiding motorists earning a crust…..
|
I feel the world takes itself a bit too seriously these days.
Of course an instructor being asleep is wrong. There is also some potential for danger. But in the scheme of things, I can't get excited about it.
We seem to now expect nothing ever to go wrong, nobody ever to be silly, etc. etc. And if something does happen, then they must be fired and reviled.
I've done so many daft-a*** things in my life I can only thank God I was never important to the public or drew their attention.
Although I did once say b*llocks in a televised interview for a dutch newspaper.
|
The geezer was just blinking. The right photo can make anyone look like an idiot or villain, easy-peasy, that's why snappers are so rich and horrible.
The other thing is that what learners need, once they can 'control' the vehicle, is practice in the art of systematic advanced mimsing. If the learner is reasonably competent the instructor is redundant except as a qualified driver to accompany a learner. Why shouldn't the poor old overworked halfwit have a kip?
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 19 Jun 15 at 18:05
|
|
Only Goveish apologists thus far. How typical of tribal loyalty.
|
>> Only Goveish apologists thus far.
Hey Nortones, that's fighting talk almost. Just watch it my man.
|
|
I feel i am missing something; whats the connection between the report about the sleeping driving instructor and Gove?
|
>> whats the connection between the report about the sleeping driving instructor and Gove?
The suffix -ish, apparently.
Goveish, honestly... what a ghastly image. Unless you are that sort of schoolmarmish Tory hard man obviously.
|
>> I feel i am missing something; whats the connection between the report about the sleeping
>> driving instructor and Gove?
The article in the Mail about bike vigilantes,, the tone of which you approved was written by Sarah Vine, wife of the Lord Chancellor.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 19 Jun 15 at 19:10
|
Well that's annoying because i cannot stand the woman. I didnt realise it was written by her. Awful woman.
Oh well. Thanks for the enlightenment though.
|
The article in the Mail about bike vigilantes,, the tone of which you approved was
>> written by Sarah Vine, wife of the Lord Chancellor.
>>
Thanks for explaination, I was wondering what the link was.
|
Dare I go back to where this thread started?
Is it just me, or is there something odd about the way that the cyclist - as soon as he's turned left - pulls straight into the middle of the road and makes for the Discovery, before he can possibly have seen that the driver was having her breakfast.
Could it have been staged? - but then why would anyone want to?
|
>> as soon as he's turned left - pulls straight into the middle of the road and makes for the Discovery,
>>
That would be the normal line to take.
Driver ...interviewed by police
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33206161
|
>> Is it just me, or is there something odd about the way that the cyclist
>> - as soon as he's turned left - pulls straight into the middle of the
>> road and makes for the Discovery, before he can possibly have seen that the driver
>> was having her breakfast.
While he couldn't have seen the bowl he would easily have seen her raise the spoon to her mouth.
|
>>While he couldn't have seen the bowl he would easily have seen her raise the spoon to her mouth.
>>
The video show him looking straight at the bowl.
I think he was expecting eye contact, possibly expecting her to close up to the vehicle in front of her and give him even more room.
|
>> The video show him looking straight at the bowl.
Yes, but the question posed by Avant at 00:13 this morning was about how cyclist first knew she was eating, not what happened once he did.
|
>> >> The video show him looking straight at the bowl.
>>
>> Yes, but the question posed by Avant at 00:13 this morning was about how cyclist
>> first knew she was eating, not what happened once he did.
>>
"Dare I go back to where this thread started?
Is it just me, or is there something odd about the way that the cyclist - as soon as he's turned left - pulls straight into the middle of the road and makes for the Discovery, before he can possibly have seen that the driver was having her breakfast."
I know Hampton Court Way very very well. I know exactly where it all happened.
I have commuted that route thousands of times over decades
I have used the road where the coach and the LR were as it was an alternative to Hampton Court Way to avoid tail backs approaching the bridge.
Turning left off Hampton Court Way, the normal track of a cyclist making progress would be to track the centre line ready to make an immediate right turn.
This would position the cyclist exactly where he was, I assume initially deciding to go in front or behind the LR.
I again, judging by the camera output, suggest he was looking for eye contact with the driver.
If he got no eye contact ( she may have been concentrating on the next option for another spoonful) then I certainly would have also opted to go behind the LR.
This would keep him close on the centre line and close to the LR drivers window.
The video clearly shows a white bowl with contents.
What is a "china?" bowl doing there ? No sick bags :-)
Any other suggestions.
He might have seen the spoon in the hand on the steering wheel which would have supported the possibility of breakfast by the Thames.
Cameras do not show every detail in high contrast situations so who knows exactly what he saw
|
>> I know Hampton Court Way very very well. I know exactly where it all happened.
No argument with any of that Henry.
Not knowing the area I wasn't sure if cyclist was preparing for a right turn or just keeping on a line intended to discourage an overtake until clear of hazards around the junction. If he was going right and hoping to cross between New Bharat coach and the red LR then making eye contact with its driver would be exactly what I'd do. At that point he sees her spoon.
Looking at the vid again he clearly is turning right.
The whole vid is a good example of how to do London traffic on a bike. He rides briskly, a good distance from the kerb and looks behind while riding and again before pulling out behind the Corsa. Overtakes on the offside and neatly re-integrates behind the Y reg Focus before taking a left.
According to the BBC report he's a cycling instructor. Another good reason for him to have a headcam.
|
>> According to the BBC report he's a cycling instructor.
>>
What does he teach, how to be a driving standards inspector while riding a bike?
|
>>According to the BBC report he's a cycling instructor.
I would prefer to live in a world where reporting and policing your fellow citizens was not such a lauded occupation.
I think its also regrettable that we have someone with this type of personality / attitude / character teaching others anything.
|
|
In many parts of the world his actions would not be recommended
|
>>
>> I know Hampton Court Way very very well. I know exactly where it all happened.
It was actually in Creek Road, just off the HCW.
Just about here - Tiny.url link to Google:-
tinyurl.com/oe4bfec
|
I am surprised that nobody has picked up on this. It's from our favourite source:-
tinyurl.com/os4lhlb
Or have I not been paying attention - again?
|
Glad she was sacked!
Surely the police should charge her with GBH?
Perhaps one of the more knowledge here would comment about the guys who interviewed. Would the be allowed to use force to separate the women?
Is random violence increasing or are cameras just capturing more?
|
>> Is random violence increasing or are cameras just capturing more?
Always been happening in London traffic. On every occasion I've worked in an office with a view of a London Street there was periodic entertainment ranging from 'verbals' to punches being thrown. Rarely involved actual contact between vehicles, usual triggers were horns, shouts or raised fingers.
More of it caught on, or in this case apparently caused by, cameras.
|
>>
>> More of it caught on, or in this case apparently caused by, cameras.
It wasn't caused by a camera.
It was caused by the reaction to a camera.
|
>> Perhaps one of the more knowledge here would comment about the guys who interviewed. Would
>> the be allowed to use force to separate the women?
You can use force to defend someone else.
tinyurl.com/py3vcmw
|
|
There is more to this than meets the eye. Any copper who acts like that just because the driver is eating a banana needs his a*** kicking. I can only assume there are other factors in play here.
|
|
Perhaps he wanted a nibble and was refused :-)
|
Dorset Police is committed to reducing the number of casualties on Dorset's roads. Our traffic officers and No Excuse team use enforcement and education to tackle the 'fatal five' - drink and drug driving, excessive and inappropriate speed, not wearing a seatbelt, careless driving and driver distraction.
"We educate people at the roadside and through the driver awareness course to highlight the potential consequences of their actions."
Blackburn MP snapped eating banana on the M6
www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/11162299.Blackburn_MP_snapped_eating_banana_on_the_M6/
Wot no "No Excuses team " oop north ?
|
Reading the article it wasn't the eating that started matters, but the fact she took both hands of the steering wheel to peel it. She said she was stationary at the time (was she though?), but what are the odds she was still in gear with the clutch depressed.
Rather suspect she failed the attitude test by being gobby too.
|
>> Rather suspect she failed the attitude test by being gobby too.
I don't really blame her. It's a fatuous reason for pulling someone. I ate a banana at the wheel not half an hour ago, and I often do it.
|
You don't strike me as the sort to be in such a terrible rush that you have to eat your food at the wheel, AC.
Thought you were cool.
|
|
You don't have to be in a rush to do two things at once.
|
You don't have to do two things at once if you're not in that rush, especially when activity 2 (lesser importance) can impinge upon the operation of activity 1 (high importance) with potentially fatal consequences.
Yes, I know. I'm a faffing, incompetent, insecure damn cheeky carphound and a liability, probably a terribly uptight goon with his fingernails dug in to the steering wheel, damn dangerous. Just to save you the bother.
|
>> Yes, I know. I'm a faffing, incompetent, insecure damn cheeky carphound and a liability, probably a terribly uptight goon with his fingernails dug in to the steering wheel, damn dangerous.
Surely you exaggerate, Alanović?
Wafting round the lanes to the shops isn't really an activity of high importance. Going as quickly as possible to make an appointment might count as that. Nor is keeping your electrolytes and nutritional levels normal an activity of low importance.
Doing them both at once is just a choice, one I often make.
It's no more 'potentially fatal' than driving a car in the first place (if you don't drive, you can't cause an accident or suffer traumatic crash injury). Unless you really are incompetent... but I'm not.
|
This may take some bee leaving but, I've actually eaten my lunch, poured a cup of tea from a flask to drink AND lived to tell the tale.
The car was an automatic though, so I wasn't driving carelessly ;-)
|
>> This may take some bee leaving but, I've actually eaten my lunch, poured a cup
>> of tea from a flask to drink AND lived to tell the tale.
Me too, in a m/way jam. If I'd been pulled though I'd have been suitably contrite. I suspect Ms Harris got gobby.
|
>>I suspect Ms Harris got gobby
De acuerdo!
|
>> If I'd been pulled though I'd have been suitably contrite.
It's extremely foolish to treat the fuzz discourteously when you're pulled, just asking for trouble and complications. There doesn't have to be a reason for a pull. The sensible thing to do is trample on your own feelings, not theirs.
Thick self-important individuals have trouble understanding this. Fuzz can be very unreasonable when provoked. Fairness doesn't come into it.
|
>> You don't have to do two things at once if you're not in that rush,
>> especially when activity 2 (lesser importance) can impinge upon the operation of activity 1 (high
>> importance) with potentially fatal consequences.
>>
>> Yes, I know. I'm a faffing, incompetent, insecure damn cheeky carphound and a liability, probably
>> a terribly uptight goon with his fingernails dug in to the steering wheel, damn dangerous.
>> Just to save you the bother.
Have you never eaten or drunk anything while driving?
|
|
Absolutely. But I was younger then, and even then I knew I shouldn't be doing it. I don't do it any more. Senior citizens weaving around the place clutching a banana and trying to peel it is enough to give one the heebiegeebies.
|
>> Senior citizens weaving around the place clutching a banana and trying to peel it is enough to give one the heebiegeebies.
Perhaps you are a bit uptight after all. And given to moralistic fantasizing.
|
And there it is.
Alls I'm saying is there's just no need. Eating at the wheel risks having a detrimental effect upon one's driving, and the feeding can surely wait. Otherwise, why would the Filth bother?
I've got som measure of pride in my driving, I'm surprised other alleged motoring enthusiasts treat the skill with such distain and arrogance. Goes in the same drawer as drink driving. Lack of self respect.
|
>> Lack of self respect<<
Not at all, the skill is in being able to multitask but always knowing which action takes priority.
Pride comes with being able to do this safely.......it can be done.
After all, we do it when changing gear, altering the heating controls, turning on the wipers and changing the radio station.
Pat
|
>> the skill is in being able to multitask but always knowing which action takes priority.
>> Pride comes with being able to do this safely.......it can be done.
As so often, Pat is pretty well spot on. Of course she's a professional (I used to be one too), someone who knows what's important and what isn't. Not a sanctimonious goddam amateur.
|
>> alleged motoring enthusiasts treat the skill with such distain and arrogance.
'The skill' takes a long time to acquire, more than 55 years in my case because I'm still far from perfect. I note though that this seems to apply to most people, even drivers better than I am. Nevertheless you wouldn't notice me weaving about even if I was opening a new packet of snouts, getting one out and lighting it. Or eating a banana leaving it on the passenger seat between bites.
>> Goes in the same drawer as drink driving. Lack of self respect.
Tsk. What a weird cat you are Alanović. Virtuous no doubt... but weird.
|
>> I've got som measure of pride in my driving, I'm surprised other alleged motoring enthusiasts
>> treat the skill with such distain and arrogance. Goes in the same drawer as drink
>> driving. Lack of self respect.
It doesn't, It doesn't even go in the same chest of them let alone same drawer.
It is perfectly safe to eat or drink while driving, as long as you use common sense to chose the right moment and circumstances. And don't insult us with the "my skill of driving crap" and "lack of self respect" sheet, you are sounding like a wailing mullah.
|
|
Apart form the odd boiled sweet I never eat or drink whilst driving. Nothing really to do with safety, I just never eat "on the go". I don't eat on buses or walking along the street either. Shovelling food down whilst doing something else whether driving or watching a film at the cinema is not multi-tasking. It is just bad manners.
|
>> Apart form the odd boiled sweet I never eat or drink whilst driving. Nothing really
>> to do with safety, I just never eat "on the go". I don't eat on
>> buses or walking along the street either. Shovelling food down whilst doing something else whether
>> driving or watching a film at the cinema is not multi-tasking. It is just bad
>> manners.
>>
It is just a lack of personal standards, the slob culture that many seem to be part of these days.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 29 Jun 15 at 17:54
|
>>It is just a lack of personal standards
What rot.
I often have an ice cream or popcorn if I am at the movies.
|
>> It is just a lack of personal standards, the slob culture that many seem to
>> be part of these days.
>>
One thing I hate to see is people walking around a supermarket eating.
|
>> >> It is just a lack of personal standards, the slob culture that many
>> seem to
>> >> be part of these days.
>> >>
>>
>> One thing I hate to see is people walking around a supermarket eating.
In supermarket security parlance its called "grazing"
|
Shovelling food down whilst doing something else whether
>> driving or watching a film at the cinema is not multi-tasking. It is just bad
>> manners.
Walking down the road eating food is bad manners?
|
>>
>> Walking down the road eating food is bad manners?
>>
You seem surprised, which might be an age thing. Certainly for my mother's generation it was an absolute no no, and at 87 she will still express that opinion if the subject comes up.
I'm a mere 53 but at school in the late sixties and seventies, it was very specifically against school rules to eat in the street, and if caught it was instant Saturday night detention.
When I met my wife she just naturally had always thought the same, and we still have a slight frisson of annoyance, or at least eyebrow raising, when we see others do it, which of course is pretty much all the time.
I wouldn't be 100% surprised if the school still has that rule actually, but not ever been back to find out.
Anyway, I'm sure this feeling is our problem, old fogeys, ya-da ya-da.
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Walking down the road eating food is bad manners?
>> >>
>>
>> You seem surprised, which might be an age thing.
I think it might, I never even think about it being rude. Eating isn't, walking isn't but put the two together and it's rude? Strange to my way of thinking.
|
>>
>> I wouldn't be 100% surprised if the school still has that rule actually, but not
>> ever been back to find out.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but hey. I just was motivated to look up the rules for my old school, and they are indeed on the Internet. No, they don't mention eating in the street any more. But the core of it all is just about the same, and some is still recognisable to me.
And they still use the delicious word "mufti" which I only encountered at school. I think perhaps it's a military term?
|
>> And they still use the delicious word "mufti" which I only encountered at school. I
>> think perhaps it's a military term?
Army term, from India I believe.
|
>> >> And they still use the delicious word "mufti" which I only encountered at school.
>> I
>> >> think perhaps it's a military term?
>>
>> Army term, from India I believe.
Thanks Sooty.
|
>>
>> Walking down the road eating food is bad manners?
>>
Yes. Along wiht throwing the debris of junk food on the pavement. Just look about you. 80% of the rubbish on city streets is food related. Most of the rest comes from smokers
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Walking down the road eating food is bad manners?
>> >>
>>
>> Yes. Along wiht throwing the debris of junk food on the pavement. Just look about
>> you. 80% of the rubbish on city streets is food related. Most of the rest
>> comes from smokers
>>
>>
>
That's called littering, not eating.
|
One leads to the other. They are both ill mannered and littering is anti-social as well.
|
|
Perfectly possible to eat whilst walking without spilling it all over the road. I wouldn't consider it ill mannered, but each to their own.
|
>> 80% of the rubbish on city streets is food related. Most of the rest comes from smokers
Fairly sure that is not true.
No. 1 must be chewing gum.
|
>> >> 80% of the rubbish on city streets is food related. Most of the rest
>> comes from smokers
>>
>> Fairly sure that is not true.
>>
>> No. 1 must be chewing gum.
Before my dog became lame, I used to walk him up my little lane and pick up any litter discarded from passing cars. 99% of it was food related, usually beer/pop cans and take away food containers.
|
>> walking along the street either. Shovelling food down whilst doing something else whether
>> driving or watching a film at the cinema is not multi-tasking. It is just bad
>> manners.
So are you really suggesting that someone walking along the seaside prom enjoying an ice-cream is bad manners?
|
A: [Eating] goes in the same drawer as drink driving....
Z: It doesn't even go in the same chest of them let alone same drawer...
...It is perfectly safe to eat or drink while driving...
};---)
|
|
I had a chicken sandwich on the A66 earlier. Better to eat when properly on the move, far less likely to be spotted by interfering bullies.
|
In all honesty, I eat and drive sometimes.
A marmite sandwich the other day, often a chocolate bar of one description or another. My phone is often sat on the passenger seat waiting for me to pick it back up at the next traffic light/jam, sometimes a newspaper or other document.
Just what is the big deal?
The school run takes me around 40 minutes. Its about 2 miles, perhaps 3. That's an average of walking pace, hardly high speed racing.
There's too much sanctimony around.
|
>> There's too much sanctimony around.
>>
Often in people who think that they are so important that the traffic laws don't apply to them and fail the attitude test when caught by a mere policeman.
|
See, now there's another thing I don't understand.
Why on earth get an attitude on with a copper? Firstly, its very rarely their fault, they deserve help rather than abuse, and secondly, what's the point?
|
|
It's beyond me, if you make the coppers job as easy for him as possible, he might use discretion. Make his life difficult and you are on a loser. That one is not difficult to figure out, (for some people).
|
|
People feel 'making it easy as possible' is equal to giving in.
|
>> People feel 'making it easy as possible' is equal to giving in.
>>
Why look on it as a conflict? Unless you have previous, then your view may be different.
|
>> >> People feel 'making it easy as possible' is equal to giving in.
>> >>
>>
>> Why look on it as a conflict? Unless you have previous, then your view may
>> be different.
>>
Some people are just wired up that way, they need to be right all the time. They need others to acknowledge they are right, the opinions of others are important.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 29 Jun 15 at 19:17
|
>> Some people are just wired up that way, they need to be right all the
>> time. They need others to acknowledge they are right.
>>
I can't imagine who you mean. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 29 Jun 15 at 19:29
|
>> >> Some people are just wired up that way, they need to be right all
>> the
>> >> time. They need others to acknowledge they are right.
>> >>
>>
>> I can't imagine who you mean. :-)
Never mind ON. I know you can't help it, I guess the radiation must have mutated some character gene.
|
|
Bingo! :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 29 Jun 15 at 19:39
|
>> I can't imagine who you mean. :-)
Noughty Noughty!
|
>> >> There's too much sanctimony around.
>> >>
>>
>> Often in people who think that they are so important that the traffic laws don't
>> apply to them and fail the attitude test when caught by a mere policeman.
You're right of course, though I never wind a PC up however stupid, unfair or incompetent I think hd or she is. I don't trust them not to fit me ip with something worse.
|
In my younger years I fell foul of the law quite a bit. When we've met I've had them get a bit "handsy", but I've never really received treatment I didn't deserve, even if the detail of the law disagreed. And often I've received treatment scrupulously fair, when I didn't necessarily deserve it.
Generally I've found them a group of people who treated me reasonably at a human level. Give a kick, get a kick, show respect, get respect, sort of thing. Typically people with an internal balance, I found.
But nonetheless, people, so not perfect.
|
I've seen numerous drivers in various sized vehicles eating at the wheel over the years. Trying to manoeuvre round a roundabout with one hand on one occasion. Yes, and several LGVs. My local garage is slap bang on a RAB on the busy A30, and I've lost count of people leaving there with either a coffee or pasty in one hand trying to steer and change gear.
There is no excuse for eating at the wheel. If you have to graze, pull over or park up and eat. You will not lose that much time. If lunch from a garage or mini mart, eat it in the vehicle, have a break, when finished drive away. It's not rocket science. Saves us all from your selfish nonsense and saves you from a potential fine.
And no, I've never eaten anything behind the wheel of any vehicle I am qualified to drive;car, LGV or PCV. I consider my licences to be well earned, and not to be frittered away due to stupid acts.
|
>> I am qualified to drive;car, LGV or PCV.
Car, bikes, trucks, gliders and planes. And I have eaten a cheese & pickle sandwich in a plane that I was actually flying at the time, with passengers.
So what's your point?
|
>> >> I am qualified to drive;car, LGV or PCV.
>>
>> Car, bikes, trucks, gliders and planes. And I have eaten a cheese & pickle sandwich
>> in a plane that I was actually flying at the time, with passengers.
>>
>>
Yey, yea, and I have controlled a nuclear submarine with one hand while drinking coffee with the auto pilot off. I smoked in those days, so was probably smoking as well. We were organised well enough not to have to eat when on watch.
|
>>and I have controlled a nuclear submarine with one hand
No you haven't.
You have been sat next to the one lever you are believed to be able to control at a time while you wait for a more competent person to tell you when and how to press it.
|
Oh sigh, is this another one of your "if I tell you I'll have to kill you" things?
You were in charge of a lever, but didn't have the authority to use it without instruction. Feel free to explain how I am wrong.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 29 Jun 15 at 20:01
|
|
OK submarine is at 200', 5 kts, course 090. The order is keep 500', steer 200, speed 15 kts. Could you perform that manoeuvre with a 10,000 ton submarine, arriving exactly on course and depth while increasing speed? Of course it is simple, it is a young sailors job.
|
No, I would have no idea. I wouldn't know where to start.
And whilst you might be able to work out how to do it, perhaps have even done it, you weren't trusted with the decision as to when to do it.
There was a better qualified person there to tell you when.
You were a very well trained tool, who could be relied upon to not make decisions about stuff of which they knew nothing.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 29 Jun 15 at 20:14
|
>> You were a very well trained tool, who could be relied upon to not make
>> decisions about stuff of which they knew nothing.
>>
I aggree, I was when I was a baby sailor. Let's say I moved on a bit.
|
>>Let's say I moved on a bit.
Moved on to actually making decisions about stuff of which you knew nothing?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 29 Jun 15 at 20:21
|
>> Moved on to actually making decisions about stuff of which you knew nothing?
>>
In that case you would not last five minutes in a submarine, you would be a lethal liability. Every one is trained, examined, and monitored. And I mean everyone.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 29 Jun 15 at 20:31
|
|
Safety being dependent upon you doing what you were told, when you were told, and not using initiative?
|
|
You are really trying to be an obnoxious pratt tonight. It is about knowing that your colleagues can be trusted to do their job without supervision. The Captain uses the submarine as a weapon, the crew, from the most senior to the trainee operate that weapon.
|
I get that.
But my point is that there is quite a difference between sub and car.
In a sub, if you are actually driving you only have to carry out orders issued. If you are in charge of driving, then you only have to shout out orders. Ok, ignore the "only". But its not the same as a car when one is responsible for deciding what to do and doing it.
So its not really comparable because of the way, or extent, to which a role changes.
In a car, in a traffic jam for example, readiness for anything other than a light change is uncalled for.
Whereas a moment later one might need a great deal more attention.
|
|
And what do you mean "tonight"??
|
>> And what do you mean "tonight"??
>>
OK, a bit more than usual tonight. :-)
|
|
You see, there was some old navy git who recently told me about the fun in saying something designed just to get the locals up in arms.
|
The secret is knowing when someone is doing it. I rumbled you early on.
Zero bit well and then kept a low profile.
|
|
In all of it a serious point though, roles, responsibilities and priorities within a car change a lot and often. In most other environments they do not.
|
>> In all of it a serious point though, roles, responsibilities and priorities within a car
>> change a lot and often. In most other environments they do not.
Driving a car is probably the most complex command and control thing that any human can do. The options and risks to process are myriad and complex, the effects of getting it wrong can be fatal.
|
>> Driving a car is probably the most complex command and control thing that any human
>> can do. The options and risks to process are myriad and complex, the effects of
>> getting it wrong can be fatal.
>>
But it's OK to eat while you're doing it?
|
>> But it's OK to eat while you're doing it?
If somebody can't manage to eat a banana safely while driving, then I'd worry that they aren't really in full control anyway.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 30 Jun 15 at 12:45
|
>> But it's OK to eat while you're doing it?
>>
Sometimes it is, yes.
There are times on most journeys when full control of the car / situation does not require 100% concentration whether it is because of low speed, low level of hazards or whatever.
Sitting stationary in a traffic queue, especially handbrake on gear lever in neutral, is usually one of these.
|
>> In all of it a serious point though, roles, responsibilities and priorities within a car
>> change a lot and often. In most other environments they do not.
>>
In general I agree, unless you know how a nuclear submarine is used and operated you won't have an accurate picture. It is operated (or run) by the officers and senior crew. Many have several areas of responsibility. You have people who operate and maintain the mechanical and electrical bits and pieces, hotel services, air, fresh water etc, likewise weapon systems, domestics, food, medical etc. And the people who drive and fight the boat which covers several skills. All this has to be coordinated to achieve an efficient boat which can fight and hopefully survive.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 29 Jun 15 at 21:31
|
>> The secret is knowing when someone is doing it. I rumbled you early on.
>>
>> Zero bit well and then kept a low profile.
Hey you always have to have a poke, and you always get your srse kicked and come off second best. No good you trying to cover up your inferiority complex as "a wind up". We can all see through it.
|
>> No good you trying to cover up your inferiority complex
>> as "a wind up". We can all see through it.
>>
Your last word itis is shining brightly. :-)
|
>> In a car, in a traffic jam for example, readiness for anything other than a
>> light change is uncalled for.
Really? Expect the unexpected, no?
|
>> Yey, yea, and I have controlled a nuclear submarine with one hand while drinking coffee
>> with the auto pilot off. I smoked in those days, so was probably smoking as
>> well.
I didn't know Admirals were allowed to drive
;-)
|
|
My pension is not quite that good. :)
|
>> There is no excuse for eating at the wheel.
There's no real reason for not doing it either, provided you can do it mainly with one hand like a competent person.
Naturally a big plate of roast beef with potatoes and gravy is better consumed at rest. I'm not unreasonable.
I suppose it's worth taking a cautious attitude these days if you have a professional licence (HGV for example) on which your living depends.
I note, Ecs, that you seem to spend a lot of time peering sideways at other drivers. Do be careful won't you? Wouldn't want to meet you on a blind bend when you were doing that.
|
>>And no, I've never eaten anything behind the wheel of any vehicle I am qualified to drive;car, LGV or PCV<<
Try using the LGV licence to earn a living for a few months Mr Ecs, that would soon change or you would lose a lot of weight!
Driving for 4.5 hours then having a 45 minute break is fine, but when you start at 3am and feel hungry at 5am, but can't stop until 7.30am it throws a different light on things.
Yes, I know you can stop but the b***** tracker tells the office you have done so and they want an explanation and if it happens too often, you won't have a job for long.
Makes a cheese and pickle in a sandwich box on the middle engine cover look very attractive.
That's a reality check for you:)
Pat
|
>> You're right of course, though I never wind a PC up however stupid, unfair or
>> incompetent I think hd or she is. I don't trust them not to fit me
>> ip with something worse.
All the cards are stacked up in their favour all the time, no point starting a row you can never win. Much better to put one over on them with fake remorse, and boy can I lay it on - with conviction.
|
>> Much better to put one over on them with
>> fake remorse, and boy can I lay it on - with conviction.
In that case you clearly can't do it at all.
|
>>
>> >> Much better to put one over on them with
>> >> fake remorse, and boy can I lay it on - with conviction.
>>
>>
>> In that case you clearly can't do it at all.
>>
>>
Only one conviction, I must be doing it pretty well.
|
Yes, I had to remind myself to do this on Saturday evening when I was invited to stop for a chat by two TVP officers here:
goo.gl/maps/u2JQF
I'm generally scrupulous about 30 limits but it seems I touched 36 heading out of town in this (arguably over-extended) one. Turned out they weren't really interested in speed except as a pretext for testing for alcohol, of which I had none in or on me. I managed to keep my opinions about inappropriate 30 limits to myself and was sent on my way.
Silly thing is, I'd given in to the TDS's gear change nagger and put it in fourth. I drove the same route tonight, but kept it in third as far as the 40 signs. It felt like a crawl on a wide, straight, deserted, well-verged road but it did stay at 30 all the way.
|
>> Yes, I had to remind myself to do this on Saturday evening when I was invited to stop for a chat by two TVP officers here: goo.gl/maps/u2JQF
I'm on the fence regarding the limit there... the road does feel like it should be higher than 30, but pulling out from Harleyford can be a bit dicey at times...
|
>> >> Yes, I had to remind myself to do this on Saturday evening when I
>> was invited to stop for a chat by two TVP officers here: goo.gl/maps/u2JQF
>>
I've always thought the 30 limit is more for the going in to Marlow direction rather than going out as you are about to pass the school.Apart from that you are approaching an area full of "yes I do own the road, actually" kind of drivers, apart from yours truly of course.
The Harleyford exit is in the in the NSL bit anyway and isn't busy enough to justify much in the way of safety measures, but then I never go there :-)
|
I don't go there either but CD is right about the NSL. Might be a tricky right turn at a busy time, I suppose, but you could always turn left and loop round the SAS roundabout to get back to Marlow.
The narrow, twisty 40 section up the hill and past the brick wall is far more hazardous than the wide, flat 30 on the edge of town - especially if the 800 bus happens to be coming the other way.
|
>> The narrow, twisty 40 section up the hill and past the brick wall is far
>> more hazardous than the wide, flat 30 on the edge of town - especially if
>> the 800 bus happens to be coming the other way.
>>
agreed and a very nasty stretch on a bicycle with an impatient van driver behind you
|
That Cereal Chomper - sooty123
