I don't suppose the fact the driver was a "Health and Safety Expert" made sure he got a ban as well as fine and points? I don't condone anything done by the driver but in my eyes at least, the fact he was "H&E" means he really should know better. If he didn't lose his job through no license then I think he could have lost it through his behaviour.
If he was late so what. Not an excuse to speed so why an excuse to shave! He'd have been better off speeding (and probably in his circumstances got caught when driving past the police he didn't see) and shaved when he got there. Might have been £60 fine and 3 points if not speeding too much. Not condoning speeding either but a little speed better than not looking at the road whilst shaving!
And how long to shave with the electric razor when he got there?? And what's the problem with a little stubble.
That's my 2p worth anyway.
Rob
|
> ...the fact he was "H&E" means he really should know better...
H&E? You mean he was nude too? What was he shaving?
|
|
good one WDB........SWMBO is wondering what on earth is going on in the office...because of the laughing
|
|
|
"H&E? You mean he was nude too? What was he shaving?"
Missing an S, i.e. H&SE. But if he was in so much of a hurry to drive and shave I cannot comment on whether he was dressed :-)
|
|
Let's hope he took it on the chin. He came within a whisker of a much longer ban.
|
|
Probably has a fireblade at home !
|
Meanwhile, back on Earth...
All the people on this thread who have said it's not safe to drive one-handed should take a look at the other drivers on their local motorway next time they are out (assuming their driving perfection allows them to take their eyes off the road for a moment. If not, employ a Police-trained driver to convey the vehicle while you sit in the passenger seat - but make sure you don't distract the driver in any way). I suspect about 70% of cars would be being driven one-handed. They don't seem to crash too often.
Please don't extrapolate this to mean that I think it should be made law to drive one-handed or to drive only while juggling - Lud, I feel for you. I'm just passing comment.
V
|
Is it any more dangerous than lighting, smoking, and disposing of a cigarette? And I speak as a smoker, albeit one who doesn't smoke in the car! So, my butt is firmly on the fence. But you see my point.
And one-handed driving? Give me a break! We all do it. How else do you stroke your passenger's leg? : )
|
|
|
I think the courts should make more use of higher means tested fines than driving bans as punishment. There are a massive number of people on the roads that do something at some point or another that would earn them a driving ban but never get caught.
How many people on this forum can say they haven't had a near miss on the roads that would have been their fault and led to a charge of careless driving/dangerous driving or have exceeded the speed limit more than four times recently.
If the the powers that be are so concerned with public safety, why aren't all cars limited to 70 mph?
I think if the man in question had the choice of a twenty thousand pound fine or lose his licence he may well have gone for the fine and this I am sure would be enough of a shock and deterent that he is a very careful driver in future. Would he be a menace and danger to all road users for the next six months if he wasn't banned? I think not. It is right he was caught and had to face charges for what he did and should be punished but no licence = no job, could lose his house, his wife will leave leave him, spiral into depression, outcome, life ruined. (tic, but this is the outcome of many bans).
I think the whole argument of what could have happened or what might have happened when sentencing is a very vague road to go down and can be applied in a very uneven manner.
|
If the the powers that be are so concerned with public safety, why aren't all cars limited to 70 mph? I think if the man in question had the choice of a twenty thousand pound fine or lose his licence he may well have gone for the fine and this I am sure would be enough of a shock and deterent that he is a very careful driver in future.
can't say i agree Patrick....because:
- if all cars were limited to 70mph, you could still do 50 mph past the school in a 30 limit....and some cretin would. Furthermore overtaking the lorry on an A road would be 'interesting' if you're car maxed out at 70, not allowing you a temporary blip over that figure, for safety's sake.
- means related fines, seem sensible in some respects...but.... the low life cretin with nothing, will pay nothing...and doesn't care............why should your grandfather/father pay a fortune for a minor traffic issue, just because he worked hard all his life and now has something to show for it?........likewise your kid works hard, goes to Uni, gets a good job eventually, why should their misdemeanour mean paying more than the oik?
|
Ok so limiting to 70 would only cut out a large amount of speeding and perhaps not the most inappropriate speeding and only save a limited number of lives but it would be a simple process and make our mainly motor ways a lot safer rather than having a plethora of cameras to tax us and would also back up the judiciary's much vaunted "concern for public safety". Is it not after all part of Government's remit to protect the public from themselves? The fact is that you can buy something which 100% equips you with the means to break the law. As most people know if you drive at 70 on the motorway you will be overtaken a lot.
Overtaking a lorry doing the speed limit of 40 on an A road at 70 should be more than enough and is still 10 mph in excess of the speed limit for cars on an A road, hardly a blip and if he is speeding and doing 50/55, that should be enough for most people.
With regards to means related fines, the low life cretin with nothing, could be punished in other ways i.e. lose licence, community service, prison. The choice of paying a massive fine is one that I am sure many would opt to pay rather than lose their licence and would to society be a "beneficial punishment" with this money being spent where needed. My main point is that I just feel people can be banned too easily with life ruining consequences for fairly minor infractions with no negative out come when there are other less damaging ways of inflicting a worth while and meaningful punishment. Money is after all what makes the world go round. I don't suggest that this punishment should be used when it would be obvious that the person has caused danger to other road users or is likely to re-offend.
|
PatrickO: "...and make our mainly motor ways a lot safer ..."
I have to disagree. You would end up with huge bunches of cars being driven on autopilot twelve inches from the bumper of the car in front, as letting someone out might entail a twenty minute overtake. Plus, the market in evasion gadgets would negate the benefit sooner rather than later. It also wouldn't stop people shaving/using the phone/reading the paper/doing the crossowrd (which I've seen) at 70mph.
V
|
|
You think we should get rid of speed limiters on HGV's then?
|
You think we should get rid of speed limiters on HGV's then?
Yes. Speed limiters on motor vehicles are utter carp. Read the endless complaints on this forum about HGVs taking 15 miles to overtake each other on two lane dual carriageways. Indeed just give it a moment's thought.
|
PatrickO: "You think we should get rid of speed limiters on HGV's then?"
If that's a coded suggestion that I must have that opinion, then I don't know where I gave you that impression.
If it's a genuine question, then on balance, I'd say my answer is "no".
V
|
And from a thread on tailgating cameras posted previously by PatrickO: " I think they are a good idea, I'd be much more supportive of these cameras than speed cameras as tailgating is always dangerous were as speeding is not."
Nothing if not consistent, then.
V
|
Ok so limiting to 70 would only cut out a large amount of speeding and perhaps not the most inappropriate speeding and only save a limited number of lives but it would be a simple process and make our mainly motor ways a lot safer rather than having a plethora of cameras to tax us
Speed doesn't kill. Driving while shaving doesn't kill.
Driving like an idiot can kill.
Hope that helps.
|
and if he is speeding and doing 50/55, that should be enough for most people.
what happens if i want to do more than 50/55? which i can assure you i do,........ i don't want to be restricted to the speed you wish to travel at and why should I?
With regards to means related fines, the low life cretin with nothing, could be punished in other ways i.e. lose licence, community service, prison.
low life have no regard whatsoever for any kind of punishment except imprisonment (and there's not many of them getting that at the moment is there)... and even then some of them get better meals and it's cleaner than being at home
- community service order = don't turn up
- probation reports = lie your head off to well meaning person (if you turn up)
- fine = don't pay it
- suspended sentence = nothing, got away with it again
-loss of licence = so what and drive anyway, doesn't matter about the insurance, haven't got any in any case
|
Is it not after all part of Government's remit to protect the public from themselves? The fact is that you can buy something which 100% equips you with the means to break the law.
You're dead right you know. After they've put the limiter on all our cars, they can follow-up by blunting all the knives, and glueing cushions to all the crowbars in the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What model of car was he driving?
BMW estate, according to the Telegraph.
|
I think the police did a good job. He was not in control of his vehicle. Had there been some debris on the road, it might have cause him to swerve into other vehicles. Or had traffic ahead stopped, he might have rear ended them. As to the sentence, I presume that is not determined by the police but by the CPS and courts. As an aside, I have experienced far more dangerous driving in Luton.
Regarding driving one handed, when was the last time you saw Top Gear presenters driving with both hands when on public roads? Not often is my guess. Clarkson seems to have a phobia of the steering wheel. He usually holds it limply with one hand. Not exactly the best example to set is it?
|
Had there been some debris on the road, it might have cause him to swerve into other vehicles. Or had traffic ahead stopped, he might have rear ended them.
I certainly hope you never take one hand off the wheel to change gear, turn the radio down, set the GPS, adjust the heating, open the window, move the sunvisor........
|
>> Had there been some debris on the road, it might have cause him to swerve into other vehicles. Or had traffic ahead stopped, he might have rear ended them. >> I certainly hope you never take one hand off the wheel to change gear, turn the radio down, set the GPS, adjust the heating, open the window, move the sunvisor........
There is a difference between using one hand to change gear - taking a few seconds - and shaving with one hand while staring into a mirror. But yes, changing radio station etc is a potential risk as it briefly takes your eyes from the road.
As an aside, advanced driving instructors teach you not to change gear while negotiating hazards, as you need both hands on the steering wheel. The idea is that you get into the correct gear well in advance.
|
There is a difference between using one hand to change gear - taking a few seconds - and shaving with one hand while staring into a mirror. But yes, changing radio station etc is a potential risk as it briefly takes your eyes from the road. As an aside, advanced driving instructors teach you not to change gear while negotiating hazards, as you need both hands on the steering wheel. The idea is that you get into the correct gear well in advance.
Why would he be staring into the mirror?? If he was, the police would probably be pulling his dead remains from the pile of crumpled metal, I think we can guess he was mostly looking at the road.
I'm aware of the IAM and their 'negotiating hazards' preference, but when I look down the road it's full of hazards - junctions, zebra crossings, driveways, parked cars, trees hiding pedestrians, petrol stations..... I'd be in first gear for most of my commute.
I understand this chap was on the motorway, fewer hazards, much less problem with him taking one hand off the wheel.
Does anyone know if disabled drivers allowed to drive if they've only got one arm?
|
Ah yes Garethj, but 'what would have happened if a massive chunk of frozen urine from an airliner had smashed onto the road in front of him and given him a heart attack?' What would have happened then? Eh? Eh?
|
Ah yes Garethj, but 'what would have happened if a massive chunk of frozen urine from an airliner had smashed onto the road in front of him and given him a heart attack?'
I'd have thought the police would be queueing up to work a "taking the urine" joke into the statement somehow, so at least we'd have something to smile about.
However most posters on here would probably criticise him for poor observation, failing to check his 20,000 feet blind spot etc
|
|
|
|
He was driving on the A9 near Auchterarder.. not a motorway.
He passed a line of traffic at rush hour at 70mph.
He was shaving.
Anyone who has driven the A9 knows it is very fast and can be very dangerous due to crossing traffic (farm vehicles etc)..
Anyone who drives like that has the common sense of a typical Health and Safety Expert.. :-(
madf
|
A bit of shameless, nay joyful, topic drift.
When I was a child some adults, already middle-aged or elderly then, used to address children and the young genially, if male, as 'Young shaver'.
What did it mean? It was usually addressed to people too young to need to shave. And does the expression still exist, or have its users all gone the way of all users?
|
|
|
|
I understand this chap was on the motorway, fewer hazards, much less problem with him taking one hand off the wheel. Does anyone know if disabled drivers allowed to drive if they've only got one arm?
Clearly from your posting you did not read the link. I'll help you. Here is an excerpt:
"Edward Hutcheson, 39, was seen leaning forward to look in his rear view mirror as he used an electric shaver."
According to the Sheriff:
"It is near the top end of careless driving, considering the conditions you were driving in and what was going on "
All too often on this site when someone is nicked for a driving offence involving no injury or crash, people condemn the police. Then when someone causes death and/or serious injury by dangerous driving, people cry shame at the leniency of the sentence, and carp at the police for not enforcing driving standards, but focussing on speed cameras.
You said "when I look down the road it's full of hazards - junctions, zebra crossings, driveways, parked cars, trees hiding pedestrians, petrol stations.....I'd be in first gear for most of my commute."
Is it worth responding to you when you make such an absurd statement? What you say is complete rubbish. You might benefit from reading these books:
Paul Ripley's Expert Driving.
Roadcraft: The essential police drivers handbook.
The IAM Manual.
I make no claims about my own driving but I found the books useful.
|
'... was seen leaning forward to look in his rearview mirror...'
When I took the driving test, instructors used to advise you to put the mirror slightly out of adjustment so that the tester would actually see you looking in it. If you had it properly positioned and just glanced at it the tester might fail you for not using it.
I feel the unfortunate victim is to be congratulated on proper use of his rearview mirror. The allegation that he was checking his shave in it is just that, an allegation.
The more of this thread I see the more I am convinced that the incident is a miscarriage of justice.
|
The more of this thread I see the more I am convinced that the incident is a miscarriage of justice.
I took that as humour, and quite funny too.
|
|
|
|
You said "when I look down the road it's full of hazards - junctions, zebra crossings, driveways, parked cars, trees hiding pedestrians, petrol stations.....I'd be in first gear for most of my commute." Is it worth responding to you when you make such an absurd statement? What you say is complete rubbish. You might benefit from reading these books:
I was replying to the general hand-wringing tone of posters who said it was dangerous to take a hand off the wheel when approaching a hazard. All of the things I wrote above are hazards.
I'm sure your own driving is excellent, I would completely put my life in your hands if you had to take your hands off the wheel as long as you judged it was safe to do so.
|
>> I was replying to the general hand-wringing tone of posters who said it was dangerous to take a hand off the wheel when approaching a hazard. All of the things I wrote above are hazards. I'm sure your own driving is excellent, I would completely put my life in your hands if you had to take your hands off the wheel as long as you judged it was safe to do so.
I think the point is is it's far safer to have two hands on the wheel as much as possible........if you had to swerve for a sudden hazard or catch the car in a sudden slide or emergency brake etc....... then two hands are what you want
you're entitled to do something one -handed like pick your nose, scratch your back side, smoke etc....but presumably these things don't last all that long.........you're not entitled to do things that require one handedness for a period of time and/or that requires you to be concentrating on other things...., such as mobile phone, shaving, reading a map/book/magazine/ text message (which amazingly people do)
it really ought to be common sense
|
Even watch TV westpig sometimes, we read... engage in sexual acts... and quarrelling with passengers is often a dangerous factor on the road. But all this guy was doing was running a battery-powered shaver quickly over his chin when he wasn't changing gear... you don't need the mirror to check a shave, just feel the dodgy bits. Or can't you do that either?
Maybe what he was doing was dangerous, but it didn't absolutely have to be. However being noticed is already a black mark. Not at his best that morning I reckon. We've all been there once or twice, or at least I do hope so. If not I may be on the wrong forum.
|
We've all beenthere once or twice, or at least I do hope so. If not I may be on the wrong forum.
>>
I can see the point you're making Lud.......... and for example i was stupid enough at 16 to ride my moped with a broken right forearm (in plaster)..... so yes we all do stupid things at times
but........
there's a law to stop you being stupid.........and he got caught
a liitle while ago i watched that TV programme about Hampshire traffic cops..... and the one that brings it home to me was the lorry driver fiddling with his phone in the cab........and then ploughed into the back of a 206...instantly killing a young girl
he was probably a reasonable person, made the odd mistake in his life as we all do, wasn't intentionally evil etc..but wiped that girl off the face of the earth
he's got to take responsibility for that...as does shaver man........'cos he wasn't concentrating properly when he was shaving and looking in the mirror.......and he got caught..........c'est la vie
|
...c'est la vie...
Well of course westpig. He may have been doing something risky, anyway could be convicted of it and was. But there's a difference, small in a way perhaps but crucial, between being caught sort of bang to sort of rights and causing a death. Of course that should be reflected in the sentence.
|
|
Have to say westpig I quite like the idea of this law to stop you being stupid. Now there's a way to bring the whole of Western Europe (not to mention other parts) to a shuddering halt.
|
Have to say westpig I quite like the idea of this law to stop you being stupid. Now there's a way to bring the whole of Western Europe (not to mention other parts) to a shuddering halt.
Most of us do think health and saftey has gone to far, I do not like the culture where we tell someone they can't do something since they may hurt themselfs doing it. Where the government has got it right however is to tell people to stop doing things that put other third parties at risk.
I would not have a problem with someone from drink driving if they could only hurt themselves. Our opposition to stupid behavour should be in response of how that stupid behavour affects not the person behaving stuidly but how that behavour affects the bystanders.
Taking the example I cited earlier in this thread there is nothing intrinsically wrong with shooting a gun in a crowded area. What is wrong is the risk that you are subjecting those people to. That is why we need laws against people behaving in ways that present inocent bystanders with stupid risks, whilst leting a single person take a stupid risk, if that risk is only to themselfs.
The implication of this is western europe would not grind to a standstill in a thicket of health and safty regulations whilst protecting the individual freedoms.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
There are many things to be said about all of this mk, and I don't seem to disagree with any of the things you say.
I would suggest though that the point at which slightly risky eccentric behaviour becomes downright dangerous and therefore reprehensible in itself is sometimes a question of judgement. You have to know the person concerned to know whether they are being really dangerous or not. Of course there are extreme cases where any fool etc etc....
My original post to westpig was making a different, much simpler point by way of a grim joke. Surely so much of human endeavour is stupid in conception and execution that a law against stupidity would halt a great deal of activity in Western Europe (not to mention other parts)? Bad taste, I know. :o/
|
.Taking the example I cited earlier in this thread there is nothing intrinsically wrong with shooting a gun in a crowded area. What is wrong is the risk that you are subjecting those people to.
Well, yes, and that is why there is a statutory offence of discharging a firearm in a public place (or something along those lines). Of course no one is allowed to have firearms any more, except bad people and plod.
I am reminded however that this very issue can reveal the differences between different people's attitudes to risks of that sort. One night in 1983 I was having dinner on the roof of a restaurant in Ndjamena, Chad, with a French Jesuit who was well-informed on local events and whose brains I was trying to tap. While we were eating a storm of firing broke out all over town, skeins of tracer climbing into the sky most notably from the camp of some Zairean troops still stationed there from the previous year, but basically from about half the back gardens in town. Apparently the president's troops, with a bit of help from their friends, had recaptured the town of Faya-Largeau from the Libyans who had earlier invaded it, and the firing was purely celebratory.
Two or three people immediately left the roof muttering about the danger from 'balles perdues', stray bullets. One lady was jeering loudly at her companion for his wimpishness. Everyone else, including the Jesuit and me, stayed put and enjoyed the spectacle (the dinner alas was not all that enjoyable).
|
Lud,
If he's looking in the mirror at his mug and doesn't notice the outside lane has stopped.........which does happen with monotonous regularity........he's not going to notice...
which means he'll ram someone up the jacksy at 70mph.......
the minimum would be a written off car and a severely cricked neck.........the worst case could easily be a kid killed
if he glances in the mirror (as opposed to taking a lingering look) and doesn't notice the stopped queue, he's still got a fair chance to stop, or if not reduce a fair amount of his speed before the impact
that is why he got done......his actions caused the potential for noticeably increased danger
|
|
Yes westpig, I agree that if he was taking a lingering look at his mug in the rearview mirror he deserved to be done. But was he really? We will never know, unless there's an appeal and it hits the headlines.
|
|
Lud - basically in this day and age you need to concentrte on your driving. In my experience you need to concentrate on shaving as well - however clever you are you can;t give both your full attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
