http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...et/7729723.stm

We've really got to start watching who we let buy our awesome little fun machines.

 

 

I don't "get" this story. So an ambulance was dealing with some sort of medical emergency, yet they stopped to hassle some guy because he was speaking on his cell phone? Doesn't make sense. What am I missing here?

 

What I don't understand is why didn't the ambulance driver call dispatch to report the douche bag's license plate,make and model of the vehicle and have the police arrest the friggin' moron!!

 

I guess, being from America, I don't get the whole socialist nanny-state mentality or what business it is of theirs if some guy is talking on his phone. The story didn't say the ambulance was responding to an emergency, in which case I agree with a previous post that asked if it was an emergency why did they stop to hassle the guy. That would certainly qualify as irresponsible. The story gives the impression they rolled up next to the guy at a stoplight and decided (demanded!?) he had to "end his phone conversation".

Sounds to me like a couple of busybodies: self-appointed monitors of public behavior. Of course, I can't know more than the blurb reported, so there may be more to it, but it seems both parties acted improperly.

As for my opinion regarding cell phones and driving: if one can't drive normally and talk at the same time, one shouldn't. And many shouldn't. It's part of the whole individual liberty and personal responsibility thing.

BTW if the guy was hindering an ambulance responding to an emergency they should string him up...

 

Umm., not exactly. Goes along with the statement "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". If it were just the individual talking driver who would suffer the consequences then fine, but it's not. We all do.

How is this as a law: You don't need to use seatbelts, airbags or helmets. Just don't wear them or take them out BUT... If you're in a wreck and get hurt, you've forfeited 100% (that's ALL) of your ability to be compensated in any way from any third party, no matter what or who the cause of the wreck - because you've made the conscious choice to NOT use available and proven safety equipment.

 

Two observations after living & driving here in the UK for the past 2+ years:
First, for more than a year now, using a cell phone while driving here is illegal except when using hands-free technonlogy. Now, having said that, you can stand at just about any intersection or roundabout and see drivers with phones pressed to their ear violating that rule multiple times per hour.
Second is there is a curious "nanny-crat" psychology at work here; there seems to less direct confrontation with authority figures and much more of a wide range of government workers (just not law enforcement) giving notices for violations and infractions of all types and then hauling people into court for what sometimes seems, to us, the most mundane reasons.
I hope the BBC follows up on this; it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

Maybe the ambulance crew is tired of cleaning up dead people with cell phones in their dismemebered hands, or having mobile phone booths not hearing their sirens and not moving over. Just my opinion.

 

Which I share

Mark

 

I don't suppose it's any worse having an ambulance driver giving you a ticket or warning than a policeman. Might do good here in Houston to have someone giving out citations, I see people driving and talking all the time and they are not even using a hands free system.
As far as other peoples political systems, they seem to work well enough, so I don't think that is the issue. This is an issue of law, and laws are not recommendations or guidelines. They are limits and should be obeyed at all times, or if they are unjust they should be removed. How any jurisdiction chooses to enforce them is their business, and trying to improve public safety can't be bad. We all have rights, but there is no right to break a law, so drive safe and we all ride another day!

 

Thanks Mark.
Adding to sikamini's comment, being dangerous to others isn't a right.

 

Yea, right. Give meeeee a break. What makes the ignoring the cell phone law any different than ignoring the posted speed limit, or any other law for that matter. What makes causing an accident because of a cell phone any different than causing an accident because of a radio, or a conversation with a passenger, or a momentary lapse of attention.

All privileges, all liberties are abused at one time or another, but I would rather live in freedom with dilegence than in a society where every aspect of daily life is regulated for the safety of all, where cameras record one's every move, and Big Brother is always watching. But I digress into philosophy.

Anyone who never breaks a law feel free to cast stones at others- that is if one can see well enough with a log in one's eye.

 

Chickenplucker sounds like the kind of guy who gets upset about laws interfering with his God given right to drink a case of beer while driving 100mph passed a stopped school bus. Stupid and selfish.

 

Laws are laws, all laws include speed limits!!! I'll accept blame and pay the consequence for any laws I break. If we didn't break laws there would never be a need for police or a judicial system to sort out the details!! There is no difference, between getting too carried away with a radio or cell phone if you cause an accident due to your behaviour. The idea on the cell phone law is to reduce the danger by getting the cell phone to the same level or close to a radio. Hands free does this, by keeping your hands on the steering wheel as much as possible. Now if you choose to do other misc mischief and still cause an accident then it will be up to the judicial system to sort out your percentage of blame!

 

Hands free or hands on doesn't matter, it's "brains on" that we need to be concerned about!

Concentrating on the cellphone conversation rather than driving is the issue. The person on the other end of the phone is not in the car with you, and cannot moderate the conversation to the situation the driver is faced with. Add eyes-off-the-road-to-dial (or worse, text) and it's a bad combination.

And yes, I've also been known to drive and phone. Hypocritical? Maybe. Knowing when it's safe to phone and when to say "Traffic, bye!" and have the other person understand? Priceless.

 

Oh, and in all fairness to chickenplucker, I don't think he was advocating drunk driving and breaking the speed limit!!

 

Do ambulance drivers in England have the authority to pull some one over for cell phone use while driving ?

 

This.

You break the law, you anticipate the punishment. Don't like the law, fine, go to your representative and push for a change in the law, but until the law is changed, you should fully expect the consequences of ignoring it.

SC in the past few years repealed its helmet law for motorcycles. That plus the increased gas prices leading more individuals to ride cycles have lead to an increase in fatalities. 75% of fatal accidents involve a rider without a helmet.

It's interesting because a number of folks seem to have the mentality that statistics like that are perfectly fine because the person had the freedom of choice, and they personally made a poor choice. C'est la vie, darwin wins, etc.

But what about those situations where it's not a person's choice? Speeding, Running red lights, DUI... each of these can go completely unnoticed by everyone, and each of them can result in someone else's death. Is it okay in one instance and not in another? Or would it be for the better of society and protection of its citizens if we enforced these laws?

 

Good points!!! Definitely enforce laws!!!
One thing to remember driving is not a right, but a priviledge - if you violate the law it can be revoked!!!

 

When I was tought to drive I was told by a good friend of mine that what most people call Accidents are actually the result of Negligence. Not paying attention is not an accident it is Neglecting to pay attention.

I personally do not have a problem with people who drive and talk on their cell phone, I do however have a problem with people who talk on their cell phone and drive.

Thou art God, this is not a message of hope and cheer, it is a unafraid and unabashed message of personal responsability- V.M Smith

 

California's hands-free law just went into effect in July. My mom got a citation promptly after for not using a hands-free device while driving. She said she "doesn't know how to use a Bluetooth" and "what's the difference" between using hands-free and using the phone normally? I'm glad she got cited. She also puts on makeup and drives practically laying down.

She kind of has a point though. I never talk on the phone and drive, hands-free or not. Either way, I'm distracted. I get distracted when talking to people in person, much less while driving.

Anyway, I think the nanny-socialist state may not be so bad, as long as the uniform issuing the citation is actually a government employee. I don't know about other places, but in CA there are EMTs and paramedics who work for private ambulance companies. I wouldn't want them giving me a ticket.

 

chickenplucker: Seriously? I'll go ahead and state a quote for you to ponder.

"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."

-Clarence Darrow

 

While I am all for lawful motoring, don't the studies (like this one, this one, this one and this one) suggest that using a hands-free kit is mostly (if not totally) irrelevant, because it's the act of engaging in conversation that's distracting, not the act of holding an inanimate object up to your head? Suggesting that merely holding an object impairs your brain's ability to make decisions is as ludicrous as suggesting that one becomes stupider if they steer their car with one hand as they are holding a thermos of coffee in the other.

If the law is to be truly effective, it would ban cell phone use altogether. Of course, cell phones aren't the only things that distract us while driving, are they?

 

^^Valid points.Regarding cell phone use with hands-free kits the theory is to allow you to use both hands on the steering wheel to aid in avoiding a possible accident.The keyword is "theory" because most people have a hard time multitasking driving and talking on the cell phone and most importantly paying attention to ones surroundings.

Honestly IMO they need to ban ALL cell phone use in all states while driving a vehicle and the person needs to pull off to the side of the road to have any sort of conversation or get further directions to a destination then proceed driving afterwards.

 

I think if I have one more person weave into my lane, one more person screech to a halt behind me, one more person cut me off, or one more person driving 35 in a 50 because they can't live without a freekin cell phone stuck to thier ear, I'm going to loose it! And I know if anyone ever causes my car to be damaged because they were blabbing on a cell phone I will loose it. I can assure you they will be in the OR getting a cell phone removed from thier rectum. I've about had it with this driving with cell phone crap.