Quite right too.
It was plastered all over Facebook minutes after it happened and think of family seeing the name of a lorry, knowing a family member was driving it.
Pat
|
Good.
I dislike normal rubber-necking, but video rubber-necking? What kind of life do these people [not] have that they find this interesting?
|
>> It was plastered all over Facebook minutes after it happened and think of family seeing
>> the name of a lorry, knowing a family member was driving it.
Doesn't matter. Nothing to do with it.
They were nicked for using a mobile phone while driving. Whether the stuff was sent to Facebook, Twitter or some other bit of nonsense is irrelevant. Whether their Mum, Dad or Granny did, or didn't see it is of no consequence.
|
It certainly would have something to do with it if you were the one sitting at home and happened to see your other half's lorry in the state they were Duncan.
....and it isn't just people who post on Facebook. I found out that it was one of our drivers who was killed recently from a Cambs Police Facebook post giving the name of the driver at 8.10 am, when no-one, apart from family had been told.
Of course they were nicked for using a mobile phone, but I'd like to bet the Plod who nicked them did so because they think it's morally wrong, just as it is illegally wrong.
Pat
|
>> people who post on Facebook.
>>
>> Pat
>>
I have never understood the mentality of people who feel compelled to put details of their private lives on TwitFace or something else equally silly.*
If they didn't use social media then they wouldn't see stuff that they really would rather not see. stands to reason, dunnit?
*It is just possible that I am biased, because I think that Facebook is a load of crap.
Why do you put your username at the bottom of your posts when your username already appears at the top of your post?
|
|
What Pat said. And I gave you the scowly, Duncan, in case you're wondering.
|
>>Why do you put your username at the bottom of your posts when your username already appears at the top of your post? <<
Because I can.
Pat
|
>> Me too Duncan.
>>
Cheers MD.
Glad you're on my side.
|
>> >> Me too Duncan.
>> >>
>>
>> Cheers MD.
>>
>> Glad you're on my side.
The Stadler and Waldorf of Weatherspoons........
|
Link doesn't work for me. This one presumably:
goo.gl/AEyihj
Can't argue with the prosecutions, although it can only be about road safety/the offence of using a phone while driving rather than bad manners. If the passenger chooses to fil and upload it there's nothing that can be done.
T'internet seems to have made being offensive acceptable.
|
>> Link doesn't work for me. This one presumably:
>>
>> goo.gl/AEyihj
>>
You're quite right, Manatee. Thankyou.
|
There are some exceptionally sad people out there whose whole lives are lived on Facebook and Twitter. Every event from a phart upwards must be instantly loaded onto the web for all to see.
I have a relative whose split from her long term partner and the father of her children was documented blow by blow on Facebook. I went from feeling sorry for her to finding it a hilarious comedy show as yet another "What he's done now" post appeared.
|
|
Ruddy (two) facebook, combined with carp TV has reduced meaningful dialogue in some homes. Oh! Except of course when the women in question have something to say. Just saying like!
|
Contrast this with the situation when a ferry sinks or an airliner crashes, and the details are broadcast nationally, live, by the official media.
Sometimes amateur footage is welcomed as possibly throwing extra light on what happened.
We are all now encouraged to take photographs as evidence following an accident, and vehicles are increasingly fitted with dash-cams to capture possibly useful evidence.
I agree with Duncan - the offence is using a mobile phone while driving.
Rubber-necking is distasteful, and quite possibly itself dangerous, but the two should be distinguished.
|
>> We are all now encouraged to take photographs as evidence following an accident, and vehicles
>> are increasingly fitted with dash-cams to capture possibly useful evidence.
Saying we shouldn't put stuff in the public domain, is exactly the same as censoring the news organisations. Its a no no.
I have I guess put more video up in the public domain than anyone here, I have video capture technology with me at all times, and I have come across a gruesome and distressing scene. I was on my way back from a train scene, so had my best camera. I came across a station that was besieged by the BTP. I parked up got the camera out, almost certain it was in the knowledge of a "one under" situation. And it was, not far down the tracks the BTP were gathering up the bits and pieces of a body. I filmed it, checked it and deleted it. However I defend my right to have put it in the public domain at any time had I so chosen, because it happened in the public domain.
I have filmed stuff from a moving car while driving as well. its ruddy difficult and ruddy dangerous. I have no doubt the old bill is on the right track for doing the posters of such stuff for those very reasons. If its stuff thats on your dash cam however, its fair game and the old bill can go whistle.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 29 May 15 at 09:02
|
>> I have filmed stuff from a moving car while driving as well. its ruddy difficult
>> and ruddy dangerous.
>>
You're telling me!
Try doing it while you are drinking a very hot cup of coffee and updating your Facebook status on your iPhone. All at the same time.
I find it best to hold the steering wheel between my knees.
|
>> >> I have filmed stuff from a moving car while driving as well. its ruddy
>> difficult
>> >> and ruddy dangerous.
>> >>
>>
>> You're telling me!
I am. You see something, you have to grab the phone, swipe the screen, enter your pin number, find the right combo of swipes to get the camera up, turn it from still mode to video mode, aim, focus, press the shoot function AND keep it level and steady,
Thats without the Krispy Kreme donut in the other hand
|
>>
>> I find it best to hold the steering wheel between my knees.
>>
No need if you have a rear-wheel drive car with proper self-centring steering. :)
|
The interesting thing is that the offence (unless they go for dangerous driving) is using a mobile phone whilst driving. And of course, it's actually a camera...
Zero, you could avoid the password problem if you used an iPhone where you just have to swipe up for the camera.
|
>> The interesting thing is that the offence (unless they go for dangerous driving) is using
>> a mobile phone whilst driving. And of course, it's actually a camera...
>>
>> Zero, you could avoid the password problem if you used an iPhone where you just
>> have to swipe up for the camera.
I can avoid the password problem on my android if i just swipe up for the camera (which is where Apple go the feature from)
The rest is factual however, i was merely being facetious by adding an extra step (as opposed to all gadget technology advertising where they say "some steps have been removed..."
|
>> The interesting thing is that the offence (unless they go for dangerous driving) is using
>> a mobile phone whilst driving. And of course, it's actually a camera...
>>
Does the law specify what the phone is being used for, or is having it in your hand an offence?
|
|
The latter, ON. Touching it, in fact, even if it's in a cradle.
|
>> The latter, ON. Touching it, in fact, even if it's in a cradle.
>>
?? Are you sure about that??
|
"Touching it, in fact, even if it's in a cradle."
No.
"It’s illegal to ride a motorcycle or drive using hand-held phones... You can use hands-free phones, sat navs and 2-way radios when you’re driving or riding..." (www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law)
A phone in a cradle is not "hand-held".
A phone in the hand is regarded as being "used", whether for a voice-call, text or any other function.
Last edited by: Observer on Fri 29 May 15 at 15:18
|
>> "Touching it, in fact, even if it's in a cradle."
>>
>> No.
Interesting, and point conceded. I was wrong.
Although a quick Google does find examples of people who HAVE been "done" in that situation, but that would appear at first glance to be those to whom the police gave a ticket and the recipient didn't then fight in court. Perhaps the detail was "not in control of a vehicle" rather than "using a phone".
|
'Perhaps the detail was "not in control of a vehicle" rather than "using a phone".'
Could well be. I can recall prosecutions on that basis where the driver was eating an apple, for example, also applying make-up. However, I now understand that using a phone for purposes other than communication (e.g. using the calculator function) is not covered by the ban on using a hand-held phone.
So in the case under discussion (filming/videoing) the offence would have to be "not in proper control of a motor vehicle".
|
>> I came across a station that was besieged by the BTP. I parked up got the camera out, almost certain it was in the knowledge of a "one under" situation. And it was, not far down the tracks the BTP were gathering up the bits and pieces of a body. I filmed it, checked it and deleted it.
I must be missing something here. What was the point of doing that?
|
Prosecutions for filming multi-lorry collision - Pat
