Mobile Phone Driving Ban ... PLEASE SIGN

roger_merriman

Porgy wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Oil companies will simply start cultivating algael blooms and generating ethanol. And cutting down rainforest to grow grain and brew ethanol. Sorted.

Electricity is the obvious replacement - either used to generate hydrogen to turn back into slightly less electricity, or just stored in batteries. Its not a huge step to imagine a standard cell which you could take out and replace at a "pertrol station" to get around the issue of having to wait at a service station on the M1 for 8 hours while your car is recharged.

So, while oil is getting to be more of a pest to extract, there's masses of coal to produce electricity with.... or uranium. :roll:.

have you heard of climate change at all?

i rather suspect he has.

the idea that cars will die out yet we'll be happy on bikes is some what niaive. there is a what if's and best case and so on's

Porgy

roger merriman wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Oil companies will simply start cultivating algael blooms and generating ethanol. And cutting down rainforest to grow grain and brew ethanol. Sorted.

Electricity is the obvious replacement - either used to generate hydrogen to turn back into slightly less electricity, or just stored in batteries. Its not a huge step to imagine a standard cell which you could take out and replace at a "pertrol station" to get around the issue of having to wait at a service station on the M1 for 8 hours while your car is recharged.

So, while oil is getting to be more of a pest to extract, there's masses of coal to produce electricity with.... or uranium. :roll:.

have you heard of climate change at all?

i rather suspect he has.

the idea that cars will die out yet we'll be happy on bikes is some what niaive. there is a what if's and best case and so on's

it would be naive if that's what i said, but i didn't. :roll:

Porgy

Always Tyred wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Oil companies will simply start cultivating algael blooms and generating ethanol. And cutting down rainforest to grow grain and brew ethanol. Sorted.

Electricity is the obvious replacement - either used to generate hydrogen to turn back into slightly less electricity, or just stored in batteries. Its not a huge step to imagine a standard cell which you could take out and replace at a "pertrol station" to get around the issue of having to wait at a service station on the M1 for 8 hours while your car is recharged.

So, while oil is getting to be more of a pest to extract, there's masses of coal to produce electricity with.... or uranium. :roll:.

have you heard of climate change at all?

Oddly enough, with the exception of the coal thing, the other technologies are broadly carbon neutral. Indeed, having billions of tonnes of dead algae in the sea might be seen as an effective means of carbon capture.

Wiping out the rain forests is carbon neutral? :shock:

and if you're using coal sourced electricity to make the hydrogen, then that's not carbon neutral either.

always_tyred

roger merriman wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Oil companies will simply start cultivating algael blooms and generating ethanol. And cutting down rainforest to grow grain and brew ethanol. Sorted.

Electricity is the obvious replacement - either used to generate hydrogen to turn back into slightly less electricity, or just stored in batteries. Its not a huge step to imagine a standard cell which you could take out and replace at a "pertrol station" to get around the issue of having to wait at a service station on the M1 for 8 hours while your car is recharged.

So, while oil is getting to be more of a pest to extract, there's masses of coal to produce electricity with.... or uranium. :roll:.

have you heard of climate change at all?

i rather suspect he has.

the idea that cars will die out yet we'll be happy on bikes is some what niaive. there is a what if's and best case and so on's

Even if we all decide to start wearing hemp sandles and sing songs for the planet whilst holding hands and forsaking everything powered by electricity in favour of steam generated by burning dung, it will take a hell of a lot of persuasion to prevent all of the billions of people in the world who have yet to enjoy Nintendo and private motorised transport and air con, not to have those things when they become available, because we fcuked up the planet for 50 years before seeing the light.

Sorry, but the sort of measures often proposed by climate change activists (for example, cycle to work... on your Taiwanese bike which was shipped over on a steel vessel powered by fuel oil), is a bit like saying, "Oh, Gladys, there's a tsunami coming - better put some sand bags across the front door".

Porgy

Always Tyred wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Oil companies will simply start cultivating algael blooms and generating ethanol. And cutting down rainforest to grow grain and brew ethanol. Sorted.

Electricity is the obvious replacement - either used to generate hydrogen to turn back into slightly less electricity, or just stored in batteries. Its not a huge step to imagine a standard cell which you could take out and replace at a "pertrol station" to get around the issue of having to wait at a service station on the M1 for 8 hours while your car is recharged.

So, while oil is getting to be more of a pest to extract, there's masses of coal to produce electricity with.... or uranium. :roll:.

have you heard of climate change at all?

i rather suspect he has.

the idea that cars will die out yet we'll be happy on bikes is some what niaive. there is a what if's and best case and so on's

Even if we all decide to start wearing hemp sandles and sing songs for the planet whilst holding hands and forsaking everything powered by electricity in favour of steam generated by burning dung, it will take a hell of a lot of persuasion to prevent all of the billions of people in the world who have yet to enjoy Nintendo and private motorised transport and air con, not to have those things when they become available, because we fcuked up the planet for 50 years before seeing the light.

Sorry, but the sort of measures often proposed by climate change activists (for example, cycle to work... on your Taiwanese bike which was shipped over on a steel vessel powered by fuel oil), is a bit like saying, "Oh, Gladys, there's a tsunami coming - better put some sand bags across the front door".

But I didn;t say any of that did I?

So according to you the choice is between being a twee hippy or carrying on regardless. I think economics might prevent anyone carrying on regardless - even if you're not a hippy - and I'm not - I am an environmental advisor working for a large London company who realise the importance eof switiching away from oil.

You do know what they say about sarcasm don;t you? Sing songs indeed. :evil:

dilemna

Driving is a lawful activity that becomes unlawful when done so negligently. Using a mobile whilst driving is a seperate offence:

SI 2003 No.2695
The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm


s.41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as given by the police:
http://www.police-law.co.uk/data/police ... escription)/39632598658F0392C1257348004CCC0A/

Also of help is the CPS site on dangerous driving:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... d_driving/

As much as I disapprove of mobile phone toting drivers I think enforcemcent is the real issue not the banning of drivers at first offence.......yet. More unmarked traffic cops and normal traffic cops is the first step with the ability to levy on the spot £250 fines. Also install more cameras to film drivers to compliment the existing ANPR network.. Also increase the penalty points from 3 to 6. Under the totting up procedure drivers will quickly disqualify themselves. Increase the fine from £60 to £250 first time and then £500 for the 2nd time and disqualification. Also driver will need to take a re-test. I nice little earner for the government if ever I saw one .

always_tyred

Porgy wrote:

You do know what they say about sarcasm don;t you?

That's only if you aren't any good at it.

To be truly an advocate of reducing carbon emissions, one should be part of the "Make Poverty" campaign. Wealth has a huge carbon footprint.

always_tyred

Porgy wrote:

So according to you the choice is between being a twee hippy or carrying on regardless. I think economics might prevent anyone carrying on regardless - even if you're not a hippy - and I'm not - I am an environmental advisor working for a large London company who realise the importance eof switiching away from oil.

That's not what I'm saying at all. You'd like me to be, so that small gestures such as cycling to work would, in fact, be achieving something for the planet. They aren't achieving nothing, I suppose, but they aren't solving the problem.

Imagine you are trapped in a cave and the entrance has collapsed. You have two choices - dig your way out, or look for another way out. There may not be another way out. You have limited air and digging will take several years.

Do you: (a) start digging furiously because at least you will feel like you are doing something, or:
(b) look for another way out.

OldSkoolKona

dilemna wrote:

nice little earner for the government if ever I saw one .

Well, and given the number of drivers I see with a mobile clamped to the side of their head, there's huge market potential for them. :?

A lot of the poor driving and general lack of adherence of the rules of the road come down to lack of enforcement. How often do you see traffic police nowadays

AndyManc

Kieran_Burns wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

What is the point of introducing a new law when there is an existing one that simply isn't enforced enough as it is?

.

Yes .... BUT , and this is where this proposal could end the majority of illegal mobile phone use.... if a motorists fears he/she will lose his license then they will be far lest likely to risk getting away with it.



.

I think you've missed the point: the existing law is not enforced, people use their phone while driving NOW. It is illegal NOW, yet they still do it. The reason is because they are not going to be caught, because the powers that be decree that speeding is the ultimate offence on the road and throw up cameras that miss all the dangerous / uninsured, untaxed, non-road worthy cars but DO catch a moments inattention to the speed limit.

Put more Police out there, enforce the existing laws and stop adding even more laws to the ridiculously over-burdened statutes.

I haven't missed the point ..... the law at present is being enforced to a degree, the same as all laws.

There are initiatives where local councils in conjunction with the police are using mobile video cars to catch those breaking the mobile phone law and with reasonable success.

The fact is, if motorists feel there is a chance they will loose their license then they will be forced into obeying the law, not all motorists , but the majority, and once the news hits the headlines in the media, the VAST majority of motorists will comply, at present, many feel that being hit by 3points and a fine is a risk worth taking .

I'm sure if the vast majority here that oppose this proposal were to have a close relative killed by a motorist using a mobile they would soon change their mind.

Indeed, that opposition seems to be at odds with many respected campaigners in the cycling world.

http://quickrelease.tv/?p=885#comments

BTW, ANPR cameras don't miss the uninsured ,untaxed vehicles and are being used more extensively, I do agree more traffic police should be on our roads but I'm willing to use whatever necessary to remove the 'scum' from the roads.


.

jeepie

Signed

The Rookie

AndyManc wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

What is the point of introducing a new law when there is an existing one that simply isn't enforced enough as it is?

.

Yes .... BUT , and this is where this proposal could end the majority of illegal mobile phone use.... if a motorists fears he/she will lose his license then they will be far lest likely to risk getting away with it.



.

I think you've missed the point: the existing law is not enforced, people use their phone while driving NOW. It is illegal NOW, yet they still do it. The reason is because they are not going to be caught, because the powers that be decree that speeding is the ultimate offence on the road and throw up cameras that miss all the dangerous / uninsured, untaxed, non-road worthy cars but DO catch a moments inattention to the speed limit.

Put more Police out there, enforce the existing laws and stop adding even more laws to the ridiculously over-burdened statutes.

BTW, ANPR cameras don't miss the uninsured ,untaxed vehicles and are being used more extensively, I do agree more traffic police should be on our roads but I'm willing to use whatever necessary to remove the 'scum' from the roads.
.

ANPR helps with those, but there is still almost zero enforcement against plain bad driving, and those Occifers out looking for that will help clamp down on mobile phone usage as well, the driver pulling out without loking properly, turbning left etc is just as likley to kill you as one on the phone, education always suceeds more than swinging penalties, drink driving wasn't decreasing until they steped up the education rather than the penalty, of course its now on the increase due to the lack of patrols!

Simon

jedster

porgy,

You said something earlier about $1000 oil did you not?

Even if there is a hundred years of oil left it's ra[pidly becoming too expensive to recover.

I can assure you there is plenty of oil that is not too expensive to recover if you can charge $1000 for it. I'm not sure you have a very good grasp of economics...

I don't believe we'll see $1000 oil though. Why? Because all sorts of alternative energy sources are economic at oil prices WAY below that level. You'd see massive switching away from oil to other energy sources before prices ever got to those levels.

J

lost-time

AllTheGear wrote:

You've never done 31mph in a 30? 71 in a 70? Parked on double yellows? FIddled with the radio / clock / whatever and taken eyes off the road, given an incorrect signal, braked a bit late for a junction/lights... ?

Parking on double yellows is not a criminal offense. It is a civil offence.