[Collette Wright]

A new survey suggests that one in five motorists use social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook while driving.

Almost four in ten of us also say we are distracted by calls, texts and social media alerts whilst behind the wheel.

What do you think of these statistics? You can read more on the following link, then please tell us what you think:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...e-driving.html

[wagolynn]

I have always did think, social network sites were for people who are a sandwich short of a picnic. The bulk of mobile phone traffic is not actually urgent, so perhaps the bulk of mobile phone users have the same deficiency as above.

[smudger]

Well,even before they made the use of mobile phones while driving,I never used my mobile while I was driving.

I always have it in my pocket, but I don't get a lot of calls on it anyway, but if it did ring I would pull over to answer it.

We only use ours to keep in touch when I go out, which is not very often, as my needs 24/7 care. Must admit though, they are really useful things to have;)

[Rolebama]

Out of all my friends and relatives who drive, only one relative and one friend uses Facebook. Neither of them use it whilst driving. My circle of friends and relatives who drive well exceeds fifty, so I question that figure.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Collette Wright

A new survey suggests that one in five motorists use social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook while driving.

Almost four in ten of us also say we are distracted by calls, texts and social media alerts whilst behind the wheel.

What do you think of these statistics? You can read more on the following link, then please tell us what you think:

If factual, the article indicates a frightening number of drivers who are irresponsible, and it questions their fitness to even be allowed on the roads.
However, there are two anomolies:
(1)How many drivers do this, but do not admit it?
(2)The article includes drivers who are stationary, but with the engine running. Providing that they are parked in a safe position, in neutral gear and with the handbrake on, I cannot see the relevance of whether the engine is running or not. But it does further skew any statistics.

Originally Posted by wagolynn

I have always did think, social network sites were for people who are a sandwich short of a picnic. The bulk of mobile phone traffic is not actually urgent, so perhaps the bulk of mobile phone users have the same deficiency as above.

I don't bother with sites like facebook or twitter but, wagolynn, aren't sites such as this RAC Forum also, in broad terms, social networking sites?
What does that make us?
After you with the padded room!!!:D

[MrDanno]

some very good points there Snowball. Statistics have always been totally inaccurate because of the way they are conducted.

Although I would also agree that forums are a form of 'social networking' they are not that bad in comparison to how I understand real social networking sites are where people seem to give every bit of information about themselves including photos and blog or tweet about what they did every 5 minutes of the day.

[Snowball]

I absolutely agree with you, MrDanno. Just playing Devil's Advocate really.
There are a few sites which I visit; This forum for one (and one of the best, in my opinion), but also a couple of others specific to caravanning and to VW Touran.
By choosing which posts to answer, a lot of good humour and useful information and advice is there for the taking.
I suppose these forums can be said to replace a visit to the pub for a pint and a chat; similar to how TV has replaced a trip to the cinema.

And, of course, the administrator is there to chuck out the occasional 'drunk'!!:D:D:D

[smudger]

Yea! I have a facebook page, but I hardly use it, in fact I am going to use it soon to post up a lot of photos that I am presently transferring onto my computer.

Its the only way I can think of to reach all the old Yotties that are in the photos mentioned.

They were all on slides from way back 60-70s, that up until now I have never seen properly;)

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

(2)The article includes drivers who are stationary, but with the engine running. Providing that they are parked in a safe position, in neutral gear and with the handbrake on, I cannot see the relevance of whether the engine is running or not. But it does further skew any statistics.

I don't bother with sites like facebook or twitter but, wagolynn, aren't sites such as this RAC Forum also, in broad terms, social networking sites?
What does that make us?
After you with the padded room!!!:D

The law says to use a mobile phone the engine should be turned off...
I did think about this forum snowball, after I posted. But we rarely see people being bullied or bad mouthed nor do we give out personal details.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by smudger

Yea! I have a facebook page, but I hardly use it, in fact I am going to use it soon to post up a lot of photos that I am presently transferring onto my computer.

Its the only way I can think of to reach all the old Yotties that are in the photos mentioned.

They were all on slides from way back 60-70s, that up until now I have never seen properly;)

Know what you mean, smudger. I was a keen amateur photographer in my younger days. We had a large house then, and I have a slide projecot and folding screen (now consigned to the attic room for years). Loads of slides which need to be transferred to disk(s) for more convenient storage and viewing.

Originally Posted by wagolynn

The law says to use a mobile phone the engine should be turned off...I did think about this forum snowball, after I posted. But we rarely see people being bullied or bad mouthed nor do we give out personal details.

Yes, I know that but, provided all the obviously necessary protocol has been observed, isn't this bit of the legislation another of those instances which encourages disrespect of the law?
Everyone knows that, if a vehicle is parked safely with the gearshift in neutral, the handbrake on and the driver sitting behind the wheel, then there is no safety hazard; engine switched off or still running.

Smoking whilst driving could be argued to be unsafe, but would anyone claim that, with the vehicle parked as above, the driver smoking was unsafe because his/her engine was still running?:confused:

[wagolynn]

If you look at it from pc plods point of view snowball, engine off is so much simpler.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

If you look at it from pc plods point of view snowball, engine off is so much simpler.

OK wagolynn, let's play Devil's Advocate.

Driver stops in safe situation to make an emergency call on his mobile phone (let's say a passenger suddenly takes ill), and the driver puts his car in neutral with the handbrake on, then gets out and stands near to car but leaves his engine running.

Now, what is simple for PC Plod?
(1) Driver has left engine running, but is not in the car.
(2) Engine running when driver has exited vehicle. (Law says you should not).
(3) There are many reasons for being out of a vehicle and the engine still running; for example when there is a worrying sound that demands an explanation.

If PC Plod decides he wants to clobber the driver, he can't choose (1) and (2) is doubtful because of (3).

The answer is that he would most likely pass by without stopping. So, if a driver is sitting in a safe, stationary vehicle whilst using a mobile phone, would he stop to check if the engine was still running? But, if he did, and the engine was still very warm, would he then have to assess whether it had been turned off later; say, just as he arrived?

Much simpler to delete the "engine running" aspect, and save stress on PC Plod's brain.:D

[wagolynn]

Your concern for pc plods well being has taken me by surprise Snowball.:)
Strictly speaking, all three cases are nickable.

[smudger]

Saw a classic yesterday, bloke stops his car at the side of the road, to answer his phone.

No white lines, so he indicates, then pulls over legally, and stops, I pull out and over take, no problem.

Bloke behind me, doest see that the other car has stopped, and runs right into the back of him:eek:

I can imagine the scene, "hang on mate, I will call you an ambulance when I've finished this call":rolleyes:

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Your concern for pc plods well being has taken me by surprise Snowball.:)
Strictly speaking, all three cases are nickable.

Oh, come on wagolynn, isn't it our Christian duty to be considerate towards those less gifted than ourselves?:D
Don't think comment (3) would be nickable, though. Think of all those rescue vehicle operators trying to get a motor moving again.

Originally Posted by smudger

Saw a classic yesterday, bloke stops his car at the side of the road, to answer his phone.

No white lines, so he indicates, then pulls over legally, and stops, I pull out and over take, no problem.

Bloke behind me, doest see that the other car has stopped, and runs right into the back of him

I can imagine the scene, "hang on mate, I will call you an ambulance when I've finished this call":rolleyes:

In a word, priceless!

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Oh, come on wagolynn, isn't it our Christian duty to be considerate towards those less gifted than ourselves?:D

Well, I don't think we are too mean on them. We give them a job with a uniform and a hat with a badge on it. Plus they get to retire early with a decent pension.

[Snowball]

I follow your drift, MrDanno, but I was thinking in terms of the neck upwards!:rolleyes:

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I follow your drift, MrDanno, but I was thinking in terms of the neck upwards!:rolleyes:

I know, That is why the laws are based on stupidity like they teach in play school.

I still remember having some off duty plod (out of uniform) sounding his horn, Then jumping out his car and yelling at me "you can't stop there to use your phone" to which I replied "If you can get it started, I'll drive off - I'm calling the garage to arrange rescue"

[Snowball]

That's an interesting one, MrDanno. Some time ago I read in the news of a chap who stopped behind a police car (can't remember if it was unmarked) at a crossroads. The road was clear but the police car didn't move, so the chap pipped his horn. The guy finished up in court for unnecessarily sounding his horn. I gathered from this result that it is a criminal offence to wake up a dozing plod.

Many years ago, a colleague of mine (who happened to be an ex-para with a very dry sense of humour) broke down in a line of traffic on his way to work. The fellow behind him started sounding his horn.
My colleague simply got out of his car, strolled over to the tooter and said, "If you can get my car started, I'll sound your horn for you!"

[MrDanno]

Snowball, The conversation between us was quite a bit longer and my dry sense of humour was really wasted on him but, Eventually after getting thru to the right person at the companies garage I was informed that by cutting an air hose that went to a fuel shut off solenoid on the lorry it would cure the problem and it did. Much to the surprise of the on looking Plod.

[Snowball]

Going back more years than I care to remember, we had an elderly near-neighbour who was a specialist in the restoration of antique furniture and paintings. He was well known to many of the stately homes in the UK.
His manner of speaking had a kind of days-gone-by timbe you might expect of the landed gentry, which itself seemed to command respect.
I only once heard him remonstrate with someone, and the results were amazing. No swearing or raised voice; just a kind of "damn your hide, sir....." approach. The fellow on the receiving end was speechless. What a fantastic natural ability for dealing with the likes of PC Plod and other jobsworths.

[Rolebama]

A bit off topic I know, but some years ago I had a paddle-wagon and was called to a dealership next to a set of traffic lights. I had to park next to the lights, with paddles down and hazards and beacons on while I man-handled a car onto the paddles. A lady driver pulled onto the paddles, and when the lights changed green began frantically sounding her horn. This attracted the attention of a passing Police car which stopped and the lady was asked what the problem was. After listening to her explanation, the PC told her she would be reported for driving without due care and attention. A while later I again met the PC who told me the lady had been fined £300 and collected an endorsement in Court because of her 'attitude'. All because she sounded her horn and attracted his attention.

[Snowball]

Sorry to continue off topic, but the previous posts have given me food for thought.
Even though the law requires a motor vehicle to have a "warning instrument" that is serviceable at all times (and is part of the MoT), if it suited a stroppy PC Plod, are there any occasions when sounding the horn could not result in prosecution?
For example, if someone stepped into the road at the last minute, or performed some other hazardous action, could Plod get you on a charge of driving without due care and attention, on the basis that you should have seen the situation earlier, and therefore been able to slow down and not have to sound the horn?

Bizarre as it sounds, if the need to use the horn drew a police officer's attention and his Super decided to prosecute (for Plod's 'court experience'???), what odds could we expect for a magistrate to move for an acquittal?

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Even though the law requires a motor vehicle to have a "warning instrument" that is serviceable at all times (and is part of the MoT), if it suited a stroppy PC Plod, are there any occasions when sounding the horn could not result in prosecution?

Correct use of the horn should never result in prosecution. The horn (as you know) is for the purpose of making someone aware of your presence or for obtaining someone's attention to prevent an accident etc.

The only times it should be cause for prosecution is if someone is using it as a tool to harass another road user.

However, We know that Plod can and do like to flex their muscles. A typical example is someone who pulled up next to a police car at the traffic lights and dabbed on the horn to attract the attention of the passenger in the Police car to tell him the brake lights on the police car were not working. As soon as the light went green and he crossed the junction he was pulled and given a fine for having a dirty number plate.

[smudger]

That sounds like they were just being a bit "picky" there.

As I would have thought that they would have to check things like that, before they took the car out at the start of their shift.

(a daily vehicle check I mean)

[wagolynn]

Checking the cars lights at the start of a shift will only reveal a failed bulb. As I explained the last time I was stopped for a failed light, I have no way of predicting a light bulb is going to fail. The police man looked a bit perplexed put his book away and told me to get it fixed as soon as possible.

[Rolebama]

When working for the AA with Metropolitan Police as members I had a very near miss with a Metro going through a red light in the early hours. Although he had his one beacon on, his headlamps and the beacon were very dim. I dialled 999, explained it was not an emergency, and asked for his destination, as I offered to meet him there, and have a look at the car to try to correct the fault. The Operator initially was very offensive and told me if I wished to complain, to call in at the nearest Police Station. I dialled again, got a different Operator, and arranged to meet the Metro at their current location, where I fixed it. I then attended the nearest Police Station and made a complaint about the original Operator. I dialled 999 a few times over the years, and never got that original Operator again.