nowtelse2do Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Just thought I'd post this link. It's a French peition to try and stop the French Government from banning the use of any Hands Free Kit whilst driving 8-) Looks like the French have a nanny state, just like us :-S Dave http://bit.ly/kit-mainslibres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Maybe, but there is some evidence to suggest that even with hands free mobile phone use the driver's level of concentration and awareness of what is happening around him is severely diminished whilst he listens to and responds to a telephone conversation - so maybe not such a bad idea after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilreeves Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 So does that mean the police will not be able to use their radios whilst driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patricia Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I think a similar idea is being mooted in the UK, certainly to ban earpieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowtelse2do Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 Listening to music.....sat-nav's.....cyclists with headphones...Taxis and truck drivers taking instructions. Should pedestrians with headphones on come under the same rule, plenty of them just walk straight out onto the roads without looking.......the list is a long one. Dave I'm going to be bu**ered, I wear two hearing aids. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Fair comment but pedestrians and cyclists have a lot less devastating effect than a car, van or truck when they hit something or someone, and two wrongs don't make a right! Just trying to see things from a different perspective! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanS Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 This has been mentioned before on forums recently but the proposal is for the following :- "Headphones connected to mobile phones will no longer be legal for making calls while at the wheel, although wireless Bluetooth devices remain permitted." Have a look at this link http://www.france24.com/en/20150127-france-ban-headphones-cars-road-deaths-spike-accidents-drink-driving/ Alan nowtelse2do - 2015-02-04 7:15 PM Just thought I'd post this link. It's a French peition to try and stop the French Government from banning the use of any Hands Free Kit whilst driving 8-) Looks like the French have a nanny state, just like us :-S Dave http://bit.ly/kit-mainslibres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowtelse2do Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 Thanks for the link Alan. A different take on the one I gave and more sensible. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don636 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I would be fully in agreement with a ban on hands free in a moving vehicle. I do not use one in my car as I believe that it is too much of a distraction and inherently unsafe. I do not agree that it is just the same as listening to the radio or talking to a passenger. I would also add to the list smoking, eating and drinking in a moving vehicle as these also also distracting. Driving is a serious business and you should be concentrating all of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanS Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Don636 - 2015-02-04 9:38 PM I would be fully in agreement with a ban on hands free in a moving vehicle. I do not use one in my car as I believe that it is too much of a distraction and inherently unsafe. I do not agree that it is just the same as listening to the radio or talking to a passenger. I would also add to the list smoking, eating and drinking in a moving vehicle as these also also distracting. Driving is a serious business and you should be concentrating all of the time. You have forgotten one - driving with children in the car, especially when they are in the rear seats ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 There has to be a sensible balance somewhere, between forcing everyone to do absolutely nothing but drive while at the wheel and allowing relaively low risk activities which are harmless enough. We top up our thermal cups before a journey so we can sip coffee when safe to do so - should that be a crime? My wife passes sweets or unwraps sandwiches and passes them over - and I pass them back half eaten if I need both hands again for driving. I would drop them if necessary to clear my hands quickly. I read of a woman being prosecuted for sipping water while stationary at traffic lights, which struck me as way OTT. Yet I would support the prosecution of a lorry driver seen cooking a fry-up breakfast while at the wheel, or anyone texting or dialing a number into a phone or using a smartphone to locate somewhere without stopping. My instinct was always to leave it to policemen to exercise discretion about what constitutes an offence - until I read about the woman being booked for sipping from a bottle at the traffic lights! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Tracker - 2015-02-04 7:40 PM Maybe, but there is some evidence to suggest that even with hands free mobile phone use the driver's level of concentration and awareness of what is happening around him is severely diminished whilst he listens to and responds to a telephone conversation - so maybe not such a bad idea after all? What is the difference between listening and talking to a hands free phone and doing the same with your passenger. I assume you and your wife never talk when you are driving Rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 rupert123 - 2015-02-05 10:51 AM What is the difference between listening and talking to a hands free phone and doing the same with your passenger. I assume you and your wife never talk when you are driving Rich. Fair comment Henry, but my experience of using a phone whilst driving (before it was banned of course) and as now with hands free is that the levels of concentration are very different to chatting to the passenger which only happens when there is no traffic or changes of direction to contend with and the driving is virtually straight line and constant speed needing minimum input. Also two pairs of eyes generally remain on the road a head whilst talking. When driving in traffic or near junctions or when overtaking or being overtaken concentration and attention needs a far greater input so the conversation ceases for that duration but when on a phone that choice is not so easy. Sodde's Law also dictates that a phone is likely to ring at the most inopportune moment on any journey. I will eat an apple or biscuit when hungry on the move, but not when full awareness and both hands are needed but if we want a drink we always stop as tilting the head to imbibe from a cup or bottle, even through a straw whilst holding a container can potentially be dangerous when on the move. Unfortunately common sense does not fit all so legislation is needed to control the idiots and as with many things legal that often comes at the expense of responsible and sensible road users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ham Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Having worked in the communication industry for 35 years . I do not use a mobile phone in a vehicle let alone have it turned on, Do you understand radio waves and the effect they have on your body even at low power , just think a micro wave oven uses radio waves to cook food yes at high frequencies and are contained in a metal enclosure. Ok what is a vehicle made of? Yes Metal . Cell phones have low-power transmitters in them. Most car phones have a transmitter power of 3 watts. A handheld cell phone operates on about 0.75 to 1 watt of power. So your mobile phone is emitting low powered radio waves bouncing around in your vehicle trying to find a way out. How much of your body is absorbing these radio waves. I have recently seen someone with a red patch on their side, after investigation it was found to be caused by His mobile phone clipped to his belt. Now he no longer carry’s his phone there the red patch as gone .It was explained to him it could have been radiation burns Now being a radio ham. I have experienced this when I put my hand around a cable from a radio transmitter to the aerial and my mate transmitted (50 WATTS ) a call out over the airwaves it left me with an electrical type shock and mild burns on my fingers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health Ok your in a motorhome with big windows but you still get a face full of radio waves or radiation. How does that effect your eyes or your Brain . there are loads of documentation in denial and claims of problems but like in every big commercial interest they are not going to let you know the true effects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Thanks for that very informative information Ham. Makes you think doesn't it - or perhaps it should make you think if it does not? Do you know whether the same RF risks apply to smart meters when fitted at home? Our generation seems generally less addicted to mobile devices than youngsters today and I do have to wonder what medical science will have learned in years to come? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Joe90 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Sitting in my house right at this moment I can "see" 11 wireless networks, mmmmmmmmm, now I'm thinking about my lunch of smoked mackerel shrink wrapped in plastic,mmmmmmmmm and all the diesel cars belching out fine particulates passing by :-S Perhaps I'll have a fag to calm my nerves :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gocro Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Being French the legislation may happen or it may be fudged as the breathelizier law was. As to Bluetooth headsets frying the brain. A typical mobile phone transmits with 1 watt of power, while a Bluetooth headset transmits with only about 1/1000 of that power (1mW). This is just typical values, some put the phone 3 or 4 times higher and the receiver 10 times higher, either way it's better than the phone in your face and is a bit less distracting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Joe90 - 2015-02-05 11:35 AM Sitting in my house right at this moment I can "see" 11 wireless networks, mmmmmmmmm, now I'm thinking about my lunch of smoked mackerel shrink wrapped in plastic,mmmmmmmmm and all the diesel cars belching out fine particulates passing by :-S Perhaps I'll have a fag to calm my nerves :D Life is terminal and even though the government does not yet tax funerals they have restricted them to just one for each of us so that we do not take advantage of their generosity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 ham - 2015-02-05 11:14 AM ..................... there are loads of documentation in denial and claims of problems but like in every big commercial interest they are not going to let you know the true effects And that one statement totally undermines anything else you may have said. Don't you know that the definitive studies into the carcinogenic effects of phones are not done by phone companies? They're done by independent health researchers with no commercial axe to grind. To infer some global conspiracy where vested interests are suppressing bad new simply goes against all the evidence. Here's one from the American Cancer Institute. This lists studies from many countries' health authorities and joint studies between countries. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones More people get cancer because we live a lot longer and cancer is mainly a disease of ageing. If we're all going to die from the various radio waves that our bodies have been subjected to for decades I think that we'd have some definite proof by now. I'm not going to worry about succumbing to death rays from my smart meter, home wifi or cell phone. Life's too short, or should that be, life's too long these days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 ilreeves - 2015-02-04 7:52 PM So does that mean the police will not be able to use their radios whilst driving? No, but I'm sure that most people can work out the difference between essential communications by trained police officers and usually unnecessary and non-urgent chatting on a phone, by what may be a very poor driver who is easily distracted. It's always the same - seat belts, nanny state. Breathalyser, nanny state, I drive perfectly well with a couple of pints in me. Talking on mobile phones, rubbish! I can talk and drive at the same time. Smoking in restaurants, nanny state, what's wrong with a bit of smoke? Every sensible bit of legislation, which is always arrived at after much research, evidence and debate always attracts the same knee-jerk reaction from some - nanny state! Of course it's never the nanny state when it's something we approve of. Then it's sensible legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Joe90 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 My son-in-law is an excellent driver, he can steer with his knees whilst rolling a fag that he can then enjoy with his scalding hot Costa Coffee wedged between his legs. ;-) But he does put the kids in their seatbelts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Is that your son in law?..I think I may've bumped into him(or rather, he bumped in to me (lol) ) On the subject of "waves", I used to use a supplier near Wrexham and they had pylon cables passing straight over the top of their workshop/offices and they'd have bits of cardboard box wrapped around their computer monitors to "stop the waves" (I thought, "what are these daft Welsh hill billies on about" (lol) ).Until one day one chap showed me how his monitor display would go all squiggly when he took the cardboard away... 8-) ..I makes you wonder just what it was doing to the electric signals in their heads....? Luckily, I didn't go there very often so it d-d-d-d-didn't have a-a-a-any r-r-r-real affect on m-m-m-m-me-e-e me......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydney1 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Blimey. What will be next, a maximum level of alcohol you can have before driving! >:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilreeves Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Had Enough - 2015-02-05 12:27 PM ilreeves - 2015-02-04 7:52 PM So does that mean the police will not be able to use their radios whilst driving? No, but I'm sure that most people can work out the difference between essential communications by trained police officers and usually unnecessary and non-urgent chatting on a phone, by what may be a very poor driver who is easily distracted. It's always the same - seat belts, nanny state. Breathalyser, nanny state, I drive perfectly well with a couple of pints in me. Talking on mobile phones, rubbish! I can talk and drive at the same time. Smoking in restaurants, nanny state, what's wrong with a bit of smoke? Every sensible bit of legislation, which is always arrived at after much research, evidence and debate always attracts the same knee-jerk reaction from some - nanny state! Of course it's never the nanny state when it's something we approve of. Then it's sensible legislation. I think you need to re-read what you have posted as most people would totally disagree with your statement. Seat belts : have been proved to save 1000's of lives. ( I know of 2 people who would be dead if they were not wearing seat belts. Breathalyser : What is wrong with the police using them. Its not a nanny state. Alcohol is a drug and 2 pints will impair anybody. Some will be impaired more than others but it will effect everybody. Including you. Talking on the phone: Again this has been proved to impair the driving ability whilst talking and driving. Are you a super person and nothing can effect you? Smoking in restaurants. : I do not like the smoke. It smells and second hand smoke has been proved to be dangerous. If you want to smoke take it outside. When smoking was allowed i was in a restaurant with my wife and 2 kids and the guy the next table lit up a cigar. I kindly asked him to either put the cigar out or go and smoke it elsewhere. He pointed he was entitled to smoke in the restaurant and he liked the smell and if I did not like the smell I should go elsewhere. Five minutes later I let rip one of the biggest smelliest farts I had ever done and it stunk. When the guy complained I politely said I am entitled to fart where ever I want and I liked the smell and if he does not like the smell he should go elsewhere. He nodded and said "Point taken" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 ilreeves - 2015-02-05 1:53 PM Had Enough - 2015-02-05 12:27 PM ilreeves - 2015-02-04 7:52 PM So does that mean the police will not be able to use their radios whilst driving? No, but I'm sure that most people can work out the difference between essential communications by trained police officers and usually unnecessary and non-urgent chatting on a phone, by what may be a very poor driver who is easily distracted. It's always the same - seat belts, nanny state. Breathalyser, nanny state, I drive perfectly well with a couple of pints in me. Talking on mobile phones, rubbish! I can talk and drive at the same time. Smoking in restaurants, nanny state, what's wrong with a bit of smoke? Every sensible bit of legislation, which is always arrived at after much research, evidence and debate always attracts the same knee-jerk reaction from some - nanny state! Of course it's never the nanny state when it's something we approve of. Then it's sensible legislation. I think you need to re-read what you have posted as most people would totally disagree with your statement. Seat belts : have been proved to save 1000's of lives. ( I know of 2 people who would be dead if they were not wearing seat belts. Breathalyser : What is wrong with the police using them. Its not a nanny state. Alcohol is a drug and 2 pints will impair anybody. Some will be impaired more than others but it will effect everybody. Including you. Talking on the phone: Again this has been proved to impair the driving ability whilst talking and driving. Are you a super person and nothing can effect you? Smoking in restaurants. : I do not like the smoke. It smells and second hand smoke has been proved to be dangerous. If you want to smoke take it outside. When smoking was allowed i was in a restaurant with my wife and 2 kids and the guy the next table lit up a cigar. I kindly asked him to either put the cigar out or go and smoke it elsewhere. He pointed he was entitled to smoke in the restaurant and he liked the smell and if I did not like the smell I should go elsewhere. Five minutes later I let rip one of the biggest smelliest farts I had ever done and it stunk. When the guy complained I politely said I am entitled to fart where ever I want and I liked the smell and if he does not like the smell he should go elsewhere. He nodded and said "Point taken" I think that you need to read ALL of my post a bit more slowly! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.