- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
and help to keep the site free for all
Police to prosecute motorists who photographed crash
- Thread starter Blundred77
- Start date
- Messages
- 17,360
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why should folks be allowed to smoke, but not drink or eat?
I'd rather drop a bit of mars bar between my legs whilst driving than a cigarette
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 17,360
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Would you want to drive past a police car whilst eating and drinking and then argue the toss with them when they pull you over?You can eat and drink
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Would you want to drive past a police car whilst eating and drinking and then argue the toss with them when they pull you over?
So long as the drink was, say an open bottle of water or coke, and the food also open, small, and non messy they wouldn't pull you anyway.
I've always got an open bottle of water in my drink holder which i drink from often and I commute daily. I'm sure it's been witnessed by many a police officer or highways officer and I've never been stopped...nor would I deliberately stop drinking if I saw one approaching.
But nor would I be fool enough to have the bottle in my hand whilst cornering, or changing gear etc.
The fact is that to be charged with Driving Without Due Care and Attention, you actually have to have done it.
- Messages
- 17,360
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was thinking more a Big Mac and a shake
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
I was thinking more a Big Mac and a shake
Shake and a straw under normal driving conditions probably wouldn't have them batting an eyelid either.
Frankly the way Big Macs appear to be assembled, it'd collapsed before you got it anywhere near your mouth! !
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
we dictate how people live their lives all the time, why should smoking be any different. as for not understanding the benefit of banning smoking, even my 10 year old son recognises what benefits there would be.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Of course that depends on they way kids per se are brought up.
Eg both my kids , eat meat, like a drink or two, had they bought up by a different family they could no doubt, just as easily be be anti both.
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
They are allowed to eat and drink. Haven't you read the thread? I don't know why I even bother writing it in...
Heck only this week I was in my car with an officer, and not the first time. We were both eating and drinking and I was just fine controlling the vehicle. They can easily pull me over for a multitude of reasons but not being in control of the vehicle won't be one of them...Would you want to drive past a police car whilst eating and drinking and then argue the toss with them when they pull you over?
Unfortunately we do, so why add to it. Even more important why implement such things in law when there is no benefit to the greater good for it, and not only that it is also very hard and time consuming to enforce. What is the point? I get protecting children who can't stand up for themselves, but an adult doing it to themselves I fail to see the issue. Don't get me wrong I can see the health benefits for the individual, I just fail to see the benefits from a criminal perspective
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17,360
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I do know that, but they could argue that the very fact you're eating and drinking, you're not driving with as much care and attention as you would be if you weren't eating and drinking, and I wouldn't want to take my chances that I'd win in court.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17,360
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Was he a traffic officer?
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Do you honestly not think that if they were remotely interested in doing that, they'd be doing it?
They're not.
And the CPS would laugh at them.
I suppose you never use the sun visor either...or touch a button / dial on the consol. Ever needed to wipe or blow your nose? Rub your eye? Are your hands at 10 & 2 at all times?
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Notwithstanding the many other variations, there would still have to be demonstrable cause that you were driving dangerously, or without due care and attention (the mere mechanic of drinking or eating does not determine that; a point that seems to be totally lost on some), or drive without reasonable consideration for other road users....
No she is not, are you and are you honestly pulling people who were driving just fine over for having a drink or a bite in a snickers....
- Messages
- 17,360
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not saying that I don't.
So the occasional stories in the press about folks getting done for eating apples, licking ice creams etc are all made up?
My point is, if I was caught eating, and the police saw fit to pull me over and charge me, I'd want to plead not guilty, but I'm not sure I'd fancy my chances in court.
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Heck even letting go of some wind, could cause you to squeeze your eyes....Danger, danger....Becareful not to fart, the police will pull you over....
I can't actually believe that people are honestly saying that one shouldn't eat as you may be pulled over....
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes they are indeed made up, I would be quite happy to bet with you that these people were not caught just for licking an ice cream or eating an apple. I would guarantee you that if you know the details you'll see they were being idiots whilst doing that and like many do lost touch with the world around them and the control of the vehicle. The two aren't the same and the offense would not have been eating in a vehicle...
What was the great journalistic effort earlier this week...ITV report vs Cambridge local news....Remember that one....Oh wait a minute, yet it was this thread wasn't it
- Messages
- 17,360
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed they were a he
I'm not a traffic officer! But I think some traffic officers appear to be a law unto themselves.
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Maybe I'm biased, but the vast majority most definitely are not....There are idiots in every walk of life, however there is the safety net of the full judicial system...
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
The woman eating the apple was trying to negotiate a bend with said apple in hand...No action was taken over the alleged ice cream incident and I think too many folk believe the urban myths they read.
It's a bit odd that you can't differentiate between doing things which DO qualify as DWDCA and those which are seen by the police and the courts, to be acceptable actions taken in the course of driving.
- Messages
- 17,360
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, the offence wouldn't be eating in a vehicle, but eating in a vehicle may have contributed to them committing an offence, whereas if the weren't eating maybe they wouldn't have committed an offence.Yes they are indeed made up, I would be quite happy to bet with you that these people were not caught just for licking an ice cream or eating an apple. I would guarantee you that if you know the details you'll see they were being idiots whilst doing that and like many do lost touch with the world around them and the control of the vehicle. The two aren't the same and the offense would not have been eating in a vehicle...
What was the great journalistic effort earlier this week...ITV report vs Cambridge local news....Remember that one....Oh wait a minute, yet it was this thread wasn't it
I'm also aware that people and eat without committing an offence, and people can commit an offence without eating
- Messages
- 17,360
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Which never gets it wrong of course.
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
NeverWhich never gets it wrong of course.
- Messages
- 17,360
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm off to annoy someone else now. Have a pleasant eveningNever
- Messages
- 6,882
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As stated previously, there is too much dictating/nanny state stuff already.
If smoking was banned, you & everyone else would have to pay higher taxes.
Then why not ban alcohol? (& increase taxes even more)
Also, why not refuse to treat folk in hospital for self-inflicted injuries, inc broken limbs due to falling off mountain bikes?
Baloo
Pleurodelinae and proud
- Messages
- 4,212
- Name
- Roger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Does your ten year old son understand that prohibition rarely stops anything? Drink and drugs being the best examples or will he grow up in the mistaken belief that just because you ban something it does not follow that you stop it.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
AH! people who litter,
It's really annoying getting hit with cigarette butts when riding, especially at night when all you see is a sudden shower of sparks as the fag end hits.
Still what can it hurt eh? One tiny little cigarette butt littering the place, until you add them up...
Six million cigarette butts are dropped on the City of London's streets every year and we spend £3.8 million cleaning it up, it's no small problem.
That's in just over one square mile! 6 million butts.
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/serv...ean-streets/Pages/smoking-related-litter.aspx
Last edited:
Baloo
Pleurodelinae and proud
- Messages
- 4,212
- Name
- Roger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
You need to stop doing that, I think some contain alcohol, try explaining that one while blowing into the machineI have found a mouthful of screen wash washes the cig butts down quite well!
- Messages
- 1,131
- Name
- John 'Jack'
- Edit My Images
- No
The big difference is that the drivers were not watching where they were going, and were taking photos of the lorry crash on their mobile phones, I know it would look like they're going at a slow pace, like a couple of miles per hour, but that's still enough to bump into the back of someone else's car if you didn't see them stop. Remember that although it's a little bump at a very slow speed, it is still enough for the driver in front to want you to pay for the costs to repaint some scratch marks on their bumpers. So you should still keep control at all times, even if you're just using clutch control at biting point and hardly overtaking a snail.
I agree with KIPAX and other members who pointed out that the report did mention motorists, not passengers, non photographers. If it was passengers or photographers taking photos, that's no problem, it is the drivers they want to prosecute.
Beside, the press are not driving, they drive to the news sense, park their cars somewhere legally, go and take photos. Or if they're in a car, it would be the reporter who would be driving as they can always write up their report later, and the photographers would be the passengers taking the photos.
- Messages
- 1,131
- Name
- John 'Jack'
- Edit My Images
- No
No difference there. The press and the public have similar or even same rights to take photos and publish them (newspaper or Facebook), expect that...
The press are experienced enough to know where they can stand, how they take photos, for example: park their cars legally, run over to the crash, take photos from the sides and out of the way of the rescue services, but the public is not experienced enough to know that, and thinks that is how to take news photos, by driving and taking photos at the same time.
Public sees BBC or ITN news showing any civil war from a 4x4 and are unaware that the camera operator is actually a passenger, so the public decides to film on their mobile phones while driving.
For all we know, the public thinks that the reporter is talking to the camera while flying the helicopter at the same time!
Photojournalist take closer photos of the players with 50mm or 75mm lens. Fans could get on the pitch and take photos, attempt to claim the freedom of speech, and freedom of press, and freedom of rights, give them same rights to take photos and post on Facebook like journalist take photos for newspapers. Expect that a photojournalist knows very well to stay off the pitch until the match is officially over, but a fan thinks it's all over and go on the pitch before final whistle.
Press and public have same rights, expect most press often follow rules (ie: don't take photos while driving) while public often break rules (ie: take photos and drive at same time).
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
No difference there. The press and the public have similar or even same rights to take photos and publish them (newspaper or Facebook), expect that...
The press are experienced enough to know where they can stand, how they take photos, for example: park their cars legally, run over to the crash, take photos from the sides and out of the way of the rescue services, but the public is not experienced enough to know that, and thinks that is how to take news photos, by driving and taking photos at the same time.
Public sees BBC or ITN news showing any civil war from a 4x4 and are unaware that the camera operator is actually a passenger, so the public decides to film on their mobile phones while driving.
For all we know, the public thinks that the reporter is talking to the camera while flying the helicopter at the same time!
Photojournalist take closer photos of the players with 50mm or 75mm lens. Fans could get on the pitch and take photos, attempt to claim the freedom of speech, and freedom of press, and freedom of rights, give them same rights to take photos and post on Facebook like journalist take photos for newspapers. Expect that a photojournalist knows very well to stay off the pitch until the match is officially over, but a fan thinks it's all over and go on the pitch before final whistle.
Press and public have same rights, expect most press often follow rules (ie: don't take photos while driving) while public often break rules (ie: take photos and drive at same time).
Whilst I agree with some of what you've said, I do think you have a rather rose-tinted view of everyday journalists / photojournalists.
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
out of interest where do you think people would get their tobacco from if it was banned?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
pretty easy to enforce as you'd not be able to buy it
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Lol you really think you can stop people buying it. Seriously? I guess that is why there are no users of illegal substances at all in the UK.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Yeah, that worked really well with alcohol in the US in the 1920's, didn't it?
DorsetDude
Spud
- Messages
- 7,018
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
