Mobile phones in cars
Walt Davidson
mobile phones whilst driving is in the offing. This will include
*any* use of mobile phones ... hand-held or not. There is talk on BBC
News this morning of a 9-point penalty and a fine of £500 - £1000 for
a first offence. It is claimed that there is "overwhelming public
support" for such legislation.
If this new law is introduced, surely it will apply to the use of
radio communications equipment whilst driving , too. No?
73 de G3NYY
--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @freeuk.com
Brain Reay
with everything. One wonders about all this silly
fuss about Holly and Jessica - it is normal practice by the masturbation
that is the Brit monarchy and its brown-tongued acolytes
to kill innocent people without any comeback. This is
no more than two more in the traditions set by that evil
woman, Lilibet Windsor.
If you're a pedestrian on a Zebra crossing in a 30MPH zone,
and you're killed by a plod driving at 60MPH....
If you're carrying a chair leg for repair and you're shot dead by
a plod.....
Why all this fuss about this minor loss of other people's children?
Other people's children are always inconsiderate, selfish, noisy
and disruptive.
Walt Davidson <wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1jp3musk8dkhogjs3...@4ax.com...
way@co.uk Andy
ISP. As an example, for the post below, it would appear to be Tiscali. (Look
at the post, do 'properties' then 'message source'.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/aboutus/contact/tiscali/cust_service.html Suggest
you include message source and a copy of the message.
I'm not suggesting you do this of course, just telling you how to.........
"Brain Reay" <@> wrote in message
news:3d61f149$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Nathan
"Brain Reay" <@> wrote in message
news:3d61f149$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> The plods get away
> with everything. One wonders about all this silly
> fuss about Holly and Jessica - it is normal practice by the masturbation
> that is the
> Why all this fuss about this minor loss of other people's children?
> Other people's children are always inconsiderate, selfish, noisy
> and disruptive.
>
Perhaps readers of Gareth Alun Evans outbursts may like to speak to him
personally about his problems.
http://www.bt.com/directory-enquiries/dq_displayOneNumber.jsp?link=true&Call
ingPage=Homepage&id=1&parsed_obj_index=0&giv=G.A&nam=Evans&hno=13&str=Harden
s+Clo&pcd=SN15+3AA&twn=Chippenham&cty=Wiltshire&QRY=res&personSearch=Evans&l
ocSearch=CHIPPENHAM++%7b+-+WILTSHIRE%7d&givSearch=GA
All information freely available on the net..
Ron
I agree completely
Its just yet Another Police Tax on motorists
And I could think of quite a few children round here that
would benefit from being run over! at least the person
concerned would be able to call an ambulance, but
not for long it seems.
Steve Bainbridge
> From: Walt Davidson <wal...@tiscali.co.uk>
> It seems, as I predicted a year ago, that a total ban on
> the use of
> mobile phones whilst driving is in the offing. This will
> include
> *any* use of mobile phones ... hand-held or not. There
> is talk on BBC
> News this morning of a 9-point penalty and a fine of £500
> - £1000 for
> a first offence. It is claimed that there is
> "overwhelming public
> support" for such legislation.
> If this new law is introduced, surely it will apply to
> the use of
> radio communications equipment whilst driving , too. No?
yes it will. The proposed on the spot fine is 30.00 UKP
or you will have the option to go before the magistrates.
Hands free are OK to use, so use your AR rig in hands free mode.
The AA have come out against the plan, saying, why not include, smoking or
eating a sandwich whilst driving, the later has allready been used.
I suppose it could be said that the idea is OK, as it would could be classed as
driving without due care and attention.
73
Steve
Steve Bainbridge
> From: "Brain Reay" <@>
> Why all this fuss about this minor loss of other people's
> children?
You are one sad, sick person Gareth
Steve
DrBoris
Brain Reay <@> wrote in message
news:3d61f149$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> with everything. One wonders about all this silly
> fuss about Holly and Jessica - it is normal practice by the masturbation
> that is the Brit monarchy and its brown-tongued acolytes
> to kill innocent people without any comeback. This is
> no more than two more in the traditions set by that evil
> woman, Lilibet Windsor.
>
> If you're a pedestrian on a Zebra crossing in a 30MPH zone,
> and you're killed by a plod driving at 60MPH....
>
> If you're carrying a chair leg for repair and you're shot dead by
> a plod.....
>
> Why all this fuss about this minor loss of other people's children?
> Other people's children are always inconsiderate, selfish, noisy
> and disruptive.
>
kind of a father are you? You are one sick dude.
Lee
mobile `phone in the glove box ... SWITCHED OFF ... so i can concentrate on
avoiding other idiot drivers totally unaware of other road users , ... i
also enjoy motor scooters and you really are aware of other drivers "Bad"
habits when scooting .....Can`t wait for the new law to be passed ...
Mark G0HZT ...now silent key !!! A very good friend was " murdered " by
a woman, driving while on a mobile `phone, who didn`t see him on his motor
cycle trike ( Biker ) ... didn`t stop, and apparenly, carried on without
stopping and still arguing into her mobile `phone !!!! ... amazing... she
wasn`t even aware !!!!
73 . Lee. 8^}}.
G6ZSG / M3ZSG .
"Walt Davidson" <wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1jp3musk8dkhogjs3...@4ax.com...
Lee
splintered end of a baseball bat ... twice daily , and i don`t need to say
where !!!. :-((
G6ZSG / M3ZSG .
"Brain Reay" <@> wrote in message
news:3d61f149$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Lee
G6ZSG.
"Ron" <rona...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d630671...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>If this new law is introduced, surely it will apply to the use of
>radio communications equipment whilst driving , too. No?
In the city of New York, where a similar law is already in force.
Police and other city services, ambulances, taxi's AND radio amateurs,
are specifically excluded from the ban on using mobile two-way radios.
(I read this on ARRL and NYC web-pages, so it must be true?).
It will be most interesting to see what the 'three wise monkeys'
Blair, Brown and Blunkett, can conjure up over here. They'll have to
do it in such a way that it doesn't still further anger the mobile
tel-co's - they already think they were ripped off over 3G - and
preserves as much as possible of the VAT income from mobile
phone-calls.
Now if only Mr Gates, or Mr Murdoch owned a mobile-phone service,
there would be no need for this "consultation period" ;-)
Nick.
Ged
<drborisn...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>I take it then you don't have children, and if you do what
>kind of a father are you? You are one sick dude.
This will probably be the last time I agree with anything you say but
you are correct. I have defended Gareths right to speak his mind on many
occasions mainly against individuals like yourself, who hate seeing
other peoples views. I think his posting is reprehensible.
--
Ged
Ged
<leemo...@hotmail.com> writes
>First thing we`ve fully agreed on Walt , ... as a car driver , i leave my
>mobile `phone in the glove box ... SWITCHED OFF ... so i can concentrate on
>avoiding other idiot drivers totally unaware of other road users , ... i
>also enjoy motor scooters and you really are aware of other drivers "Bad"
>habits when scooting .....Can`t wait for the new law to be passed ...
I can't wait to see if it can be enforced.
--
Ged
Lee
ie ... using a mobile phone while driving !!! :-((
73 . Lee.
G6ZSG / M3ZSG .
"Ged" <ge...@morpheous.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yNLvFNDc...@morpheous.fsnet.co.uk...
Brain Reay
decry the loss of innocent life without those being
responsible for that loss being punished?
I do not think so.
Lilibet Windsor and her brown-tongued acolytes
kill innocent people all the time. Have they some
special right to do so? Are their victims less valued
as humans than a couple of dead children?
I do not think so.
Lilibet Windsor seems to think so. No doubt we
shall hear of her sending her "condolences" in
a great outburst of publ;ic hypocrisy, ignoring the many innocent
people whose deaths she has been directly responsible for?
While on the subject, once again the plods are embarrassed
by their own incompetence and have picked on two innocent
victims. Have we learned nothing from the case of the Birmingham 6?
They've got no evidence, as is clear from the number of times
that they're going back to the Magistrates Court for time extensions.
Frank Turner-Smith
Lee wrote in message ...
Ged
<leemo...@hotmail.com> writes
>It will Gerald!!, too many deaths attributed to driving without due care ...
>ie ... using a mobile phone while driving !!! :-((
>
>73 . Lee.
>
>G6ZSG / M3ZSG .
>
I hope it can Mr. Onions but passing a law is quite different from
enforcing it.
I, myself, have been driving for over four decades and have never been
stopped by the police for any matter whatsoever. There just isn't the
resources about to make such a law enforceable.
73
--
Ged
Frank Turner-Smith
difference to them.
Lee wrote in message ...
Ron
Yes I do have a child actually
He has just graduated from StAndrews Uni in Scotland
with Hons First class this year, and also a good sense of
humour as well, which is sadly lacking in most these
days..
Lee
greatest pain, ... give them an idea of trauma 8^s).
Lee.
G6ZSG / M3ZSG .
"Frank Turner-Smith" <frank.tur...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:3d623d58$1...@pull.gecm.com...
Lee
Must confess to two speeding offences and one baldish tyre in the 70s
,...all Friday 13th ... stay in now on that date , never been in trouble
since , nearly was when i wrapped a mike lead round the steering wheel
...heh,heh ...
But i hope that it`s enforced , ... and that police and emergency services
aren`t excluded ... :-(( .
>
> 73
>
> --
> Ged
J.
>On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:16:40 +0100, Walt Davidson
><wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>If this new law is introduced, surely it will apply to the use of
>>radio communications equipment whilst driving , too. No?
>
>In the city of New York, where a similar law is already in force.
>Police and other city services, ambulances, taxi's [taxis] AND radio
>amateurs, are specifically excluded from the ban on using mobile
>two-way radios.
>(I read this on ARRL and NYC web-pages, so it must be true?).
I can understand emergency services and taxis being exempt, but
why, logically, amateurs? How can using a mobile 'phone be
distracting and amateur radio not be distracting?
J.
<Steve.Ba...@m1swb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi Walt
>
> > From: Walt Davidson <wal...@tiscali.co.uk>
>
> > It seems, as I predicted a year ago, that a total ban on
> > the use of
> > mobile phones whilst driving is in the offing. This will
> > include
> > *any* use of mobile phones ... hand-held or not. There
> > is talk on BBC
> > News this morning of a 9-point penalty and a fine of £500
> > - £1000 for
> > a first offence. It is claimed that there is
> > "overwhelming public
> > support" for such legislation.
>
> > If this new law is introduced, surely it will apply to
> > the use of
> > radio communications equipment whilst driving , too. No?
>
>yes it will. The proposed on the spot fine is 30.00 UKP
>or you will have the option to go before the magistrates.
>Hands free are OK to use, so use your AR rig in hands free mode.
Where have you seen these details?
>The AA have come out against the plan, saying, why not include, smoking
>or eating a sandwich whilst driving, the later has already been used.
>I suppose it could be said that the idea is OK, as it would could be
>classed as driving without due care and attention.
Smoking should certainly be banned. Everywhere. _Anything _ that
distracts you can come under this catch-all 'care and attention'
law.
J.
>First thing we`ve fully agreed on Walt , ... as a car driver , i leave my
>mobile `phone in the glove box ... SWITCHED OFF ... so i can concentrate on
>avoiding other idiot drivers totally unaware of other road users , ... i
>also enjoy motor scooters and you really are aware of other drivers "Bad"
>habits when scooting .....Can`t wait for the new law to be passed ...
>
>Mark G0HZT ...now silent key !!! A very good friend was " murdered " by
>a woman, driving while on a mobile `phone, who didn`t see him on his motor
>cycle trike ( Biker ) ... didn`t stop, and apparenly, carried on without
>stopping and still arguing into her mobile `phone !!!! ... amazing... she
>wasn`t even aware !!!!
I expect she got away with a caution?
Steve Bainbridge
> From: nordl...@hotmail.com (J.)
> On Tuesday, 20 Aug 2002 10:57:50 -500, "Steve Bainbridge"
> <Steve.Ba...@m1swb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>yes it will. The proposed on the spot fine is 30.00 UKP
>>or you will have the option to go before the magistrates.
>>Hands free are OK to use, so use your AR rig in hands free mode.
> Where have you seen these details?
It was either on the news, or teletext. It also mentioned that it was OK for the
passenger to use a mobile. The idea no doubt is both hands on the wheel.
>>The AA have come out against the plan, saying, why not include, smoking
>>or eating a sandwich whilst driving, the later has already been used.
>>I suppose it could be said that the idea is OK, as it would could be
>>classed as driving without due care and attention.
> Smoking should certainly be banned. Everywhere. _Anything
Yes, I have seen a few drivers suddenly jump when they have dropped their fag
onto their lap, argggggg painfull
73
Steve
harrogate
> mobile phones whilst driving is in the offing. This will include
> *any* use of mobile phones ... hand-held or not. There is talk on BBC
> News this morning of a 9-point penalty and a fine of £500 - £1000 for
> a first offence. It is claimed that there is "overwhelming public
> support" for such legislation.
>
> If this new law is introduced, surely it will apply to the use of
> radio communications equipment whilst driving , too. No?
>
Have to agree with Walt, and as others have said, how can it be policed or
enforced?
I see no difference between someone listening to the Monday Play or Today/PM
on Radio 4 or having a conversation with a passenger from having a telephone
conversation on a full handsfree system. The distraction/loss of driving
conecntration effects are the same.
Note the phrase above: there are far too many people using so-called
'personal' h/f earpiece types - that must be worse since it blocks the
hearing in one ear. At least if the sound is coming out of a loudspeaker -
better still through the card radio speakers as can easily be done in many
modern cars - it is like a conversation with a passenger.
This could of course be the thin end of the wedge - banning of the carrying
of passengers who can speak, banning the use of car radios/music systems
whilst the ignition is switched on, etc etc.. Then there is
eating/drinking/thinking....................... If there is a major
problems with phones then steps should also be taken amongst the boy racers
with the 300W stereos that you can hear two cars behind you at the lights
with the windows closed in a rain storm and with your radio on!
Interesting isn't it how there is always 'overwhelming public demand' when
the Govt or a loud-mouthed lobby want something unpopular doing - like the
ban on handguns after Dunblane, and the upcoming proposed ban on hunting. I
read last week that there are now more illegal handguns in use and more
armed robberies than ever there were before guns were banned!
If there is any interest in policing the so-called problem, then existing
law can be used - Failing to have a vehicle under proper control, Due Care
and Attention, even Dangerous Driving - will all cover the 'problem.' Yes I
agree something must be done about using a handheld phone whilst driving,
but a bit of simple common sense would not come amiss methinks. The phone
companies could help enormously by making their proper handsfree kits more
reasonably priced - £120 a go is a rip-off.
--
Woody
DrBoris
>
> Yes I do have a child actually
> He has just graduated from StAndrews Uni in Scotland
> with Hons First class this year, and also a good sense of
> humour as well, which is sadly lacking in most these
> days..
>
humour I suggest you go to your local tell a few jokes
about the subject and see how many people find it funny.
My guess is you may soon discover you are very much
in the minority.
Ian Williams
two way ,duplex conversation , you cannot hold any part of the conversation
unless the phone is held to the ear .
whereas amateur radio equipment usually cannot be used in full duplex in the
same manner , or at least most qsos consist of sending and receiving , but
not at the same time as in mobile phones.
so argueably , amateur radio eqpt is only 50% as likely to cause the same
problems ..
radio communications eqpt is typically only a one way excercise at any
time .
if we used VOX transmission and a sun visor mounted microphone, then both
hands can be held on the steering wheel most of the time , except for when
making gear changes and controlling indicators and wipers and lights and
horn and radio and cd and air conditioning and heating and electric windows
and any other controls inside the car which are operated manually by one
hand !!!
73 /m
Howard Long
> I, myself, have been driving for over four decades
I'd take a break. You must be tired out.
Howard G6LVB
Ian Williams
been 200 years ago , you would have been ejected from the british empire for
such ..
you should not have even been allowed to post such a nasty message .
shame on you .
"Brain Reay" <@> wrote in message
news:3d61f149$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> The plods get away
> with everything. One wonders about all this silly
> fuss about Holly and Jessica - it is normal practice by the masturbation
> that is the Brit monarchy and its brown-tongued acolytes
> to kill innocent people without any comeback. This is
> no more than two more in the traditions set by that evil
> woman, Lilibet Windsor.
>
> If you're a pedestrian on a Zebra crossing in a 30MPH zone,
> and you're killed by a plod driving at 60MPH....
>
> If you're carrying a chair leg for repair and you're shot dead by
> a plod.....
>
> Why all this fuss about this minor loss of other people's children?
> Other people's children are always inconsiderate, selfish, noisy
> and disruptive.
>
Dave
"Steve Bainbridge" <Steve.Ba...@m1swb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MSGID_2=3a250=2f220=40fidonet...@fidonet.org...
> Hi
>
> > From: "Brain Reay" <@>
>
>
> > Why all this fuss about this minor loss of other people's
> > children?
Let's hope he's never a parent
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/2002
Ron
What on Earth has the murder of two children
got to do with it?
This topic is about mobile phones??
Dave
"harrogate" <harr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:mav89.1238$7d1....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Walt Davidson" <wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1jp3musk8dkhogjs3...@4ax.com...
> > It seems, as I predicted a year ago, that a total ban on the use of
> > mobile phones whilst driving is in the offing. This will include
> > *any* use of mobile phones ... hand-held or not. There is talk on BBC
> > News this morning of a 9-point penalty and a fine of £500 - £1000 for
> > a first offence. It is claimed that there is "overwhelming public
> > support" for such legislation.
> >
> > If this new law is introduced, surely it will apply to the use of
> > radio communications equipment whilst driving , too. No?
> >
> > 73 de G3NYY
> >
> > --
> > Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @freeuk.com
>
> Have to agree with Walt, and as others have said, how can it be policed or
> enforced?
>
> I see no difference between someone listening to the Monday Play or
Today/PM
> on Radio 4 or having a conversation with a passenger from having a
telephone
> conversation on a full handsfree system. The distraction/loss of driving
> conecntration effects are the same.
>
It's the one hand on the wheel othe other holding the phone situation which
is what this is all about not talking. You have far less control with just
1 hand. Having a qso or rx'ing to the radio does'nt need one hand on the
wheel does it ? Though the most safest situ is to shut up and listen to
what's around you not the radio or others in the car. Common sense tells you
this
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
>>In the city of New York, where a similar law is already in force.
>>Police and other city services, ambulances, taxi's [taxis] AND radio
Thanks for adding the bit in brackets, even though it is grammatically
incorrect.
Taxi is an abbreviation of the word of the word *taximeter* or the
words *taxi-cab* so the apostrophe is there to represent the
missing letters, meter or -cab.
Old Nick.
p.s. Anbody looking for the .gov proposals, will find them at:
Walt Davidson
wrote:
>Taxi is an abbreviation of the word of the word *taximeter* or the
>words *taxi-cab* so the apostrophe is there to represent the
>missing letters, meter or -cab.
If that were true, the singular would be taxi'
Walt Davidson
<harr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I see no difference between someone listening to the Monday Play or Today/PM
>on Radio 4 or having a conversation with a passenger from having a telephone
>conversation on a full handsfree system. The distraction/loss of driving
>conecntration effects are the same.
I don't agree. There is a world of a difference between listening
passively to a radio broadcast, and participating in a telephone or
radio conversation where you have to answer questions, develop
arguments, etc.
>Note the phrase above: there are far too many people using so-called
>'personal' h/f earpiece types - that must be worse since it blocks the
>hearing in one ear.
This is true, and the use of headsets was singled out for a specific
ban in the context of mobile phones.
> Then there is
>eating/drinking/thinking.......................
A number of people have already been prosecuted under existing
legislation for eating chocolate biscuits, drinking Coca Cola, etc,
whilst driving.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>Taxi is an abbreviation of the word of the word *taximeter* or the
>>words *taxi-cab* so the apostrophe is there to represent the
>>missing letters, meter or -cab.
>
>If that were true, the singular would be taxi'
It's not a question of "if it were true" - just look in your
dictionary.
This is what the 'New Shorter Oxford Dictionary' of 1997 says:
taxi /"taksi/ n. & v.E20.
[Colloq. abbrev. of TAXIMETER. In sense 2 directly f. the vb.]A n.
1 More fully taxi-cab. A motor- car licensed to ply for hire and usu.
fitted with a taximeter. E20.b A (small) passenger aeroplane, a
taxiplane; a taxi-boat. colloq. E20.
Argue the point with them old son.
Nick.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>If that were true, the singular would be taxi'
>
>73 de G3NYY
For those who care, looking up TAXIS in the same dictionary, results
in the following meanings only:
taxis /"taksIs/ n. Pl. taxes /taksi:z/.L16. [Gk = arrangement, f.
tassein arrange.]<unknown>
1 Rhet. A figure of speech in which individual elements are
systematically arranged. Only in L16.<unknown>
2 Archit. Arrangement of the elements of a building in due proportion;
ordonnance. Only in E18.
3 Med. (An instance of) a surgical operation to reposition a displaced
part by means of traction. Now rare or obs. M18.
4 Gk Hist. A company of soldiers, esp. foot-soldiers; a military
division of varying size. M19.
5 Philol. Order or arrangement of words. rare. L19.
6 Biol. The motion or orientation of an organism or part of one,
related to the direction of a stimulus. Cf. TROPISM. L19.
Nary a mention of that word as a plural of TAXI
As I said.... Argue the point with them.
Nick.
p.s. Then if you really feel the urge, you can enter TAXI'S into
Google. - Hours of fun to be had there. ;-)
JRW
A telephone conversation demands immediate responses from both people
involved and so puts pressure on the driver(s). A normal QSO isn't so bad
because you can pause whilst you are talking, without intervention from the
other person(s) in the conversation. Listening to radio/music whilst
driving is alright, but, loud music should be banned, especially on narrow
roads where driver's reactions need to be particularly quick.
John
DrBoris
>
>
> What on Earth has the murder of two children
> got to do with it?
> This topic is about mobile phones??
>
it into some sick jibe about the murder of those two
girls. That is what I was referring to. Clearly you didn't
read the post in full.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<drborisn...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>If you find the murder of two young girls a topic of
>humour I suggest you go to your local tell a few jokes
>about the subject and see how many people find it funny.
>My guess is you may soon discover you are very much
>in the minority.
...and later, when you regain consciousness, find yourself wearing
lots of bandages.
Ron
>>In the city of New York, where a similar law is already in force.
>>Police and other city services, ambulances, taxi's [taxis] AND radio
>>amateurs, are specifically excluded from the ban on using mobile
Well if its good for America then it sure as hell won't be good for
us!
g3...@nospam.qsl.net
>The plods get away
>with everything. One wonders about all this silly
>fuss about Holly and Jessica - it is normal practice by the masturbation
>that is the Brit monarchy and its brown-tongued acolytes
>to kill innocent people without any comeback. This is
>no more than two more in the traditions set by that evil
>woman, Lilibet Windsor.
>
>If you're a pedestrian on a Zebra crossing in a 30MPH zone,
>and you're killed by a plod driving at 60MPH....
>
>If you're carrying a chair leg for repair and you're shot dead by
>a plod.....
>
>Why all this fuss about this minor loss of other people's children?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Other people's children are always inconsiderate, selfish, noisy
>and disruptive.
Obviously the comments of a sad, demented, "tile loose" failure..
This posting of yours plummets to depths previously unthought of.
It will shortly be sent to your ISP...
You really are DISGUSTING.
G3PHO
g3...@nospam.qsl.net
>One wonders about all this silly
>fuss about Holly and Jessica -
<Large snip of an ignorant, disgusting post>
And some of you wonder why I have posted earlier on the subject of
Gareth Alun Evans, G4SDW (aka Brain Reay, etc). All I got in reply
those were "lighten up", "Stupid Boy", "grow up" etc etc... Can you
now see why I shall continue to wage war on this perverted mind who is
personified in the shape of G4SDW.
Of course he wouldn't dare speak to anyone like this face to face. The
chance has been offered to him but he refuses to acknowledge the
invitation.
To GW3NCT I say ... stick around! Don't desert this newsgroup. More
like you and I might eventually drive Evans from it.
A copy of his recent post is on its way to his ISP. I wonder what his
local newspaper might make of it?
Peter Day, G3PHO
way@co.uk Andy
<g3...@nospam.qsl.net> wrote in message
news:3d65dd40...@usenet.free-online.net...
http://www.buck.com/cgi-bin/do_hamcall/
Just an innocent question...............
Brian
"Walt Davidson" <wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1jp3musk8dkhogjs3...@4ax.com...
> It seems, as I predicted a year ago, that a total ban on the use of
> mobile phones whilst driving is in the offing. This will include
> *any* use of mobile phones ... hand-held or not.
Actually that's not true. It is intended to apply only to hand held units.
There is no intention of including equipment of the 'hands free' type.
There is talk on BBC
>
> If this new law is introduced, surely it will apply to the use of
> radio communications equipment whilst driving , too.
That depends on the wording the legislators use. Knowing at first hand how
lax they are in using the English language you can safely assume that any
law will be wide enough to include amateur radio gear as well. How the
one-man Police vehicles will manage is anyones guess.
Brain Reay
the emergency services and the po lice farces being exempt.
"We protect the lives of the public by killing members of the public"?????
J. <nordl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d626dc1...@news.freeserve.net...
Brain Reay
are dangerous and selfish. Anybody who creams a biker
(as anybody who creams a plod as on the M4 a
couple of days ago) is doing us all a favour.
J. <nordl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d626d70...@news.freeserve.net...
Brain Reay
to be protected from those arrogant fools who think that
their way of life allows them to kill innocent people?
As to "ejecting" your comment is a clear condemnation of
everything that is the masturbation of the Brit monarchy.
As to other people's children, there is a wild and aggressive
group loitering on the green outside every day. If only one
was abducted, the problem would be solved!
Ian Williams <alma.c...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ajtvk7$ja2$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Brain Reay
One aspect of this is the way in which the masturbation of the
Brit monarchy kills innocent people and escapes punishment.
Ron <rona...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d628382...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
Brain Reay
pollution from one hundred yards in any direction.
The rhythmic nature of what is heard, the loudness of it to
drive out all intellectual thought, and the age of the drivers
suggest very strongly that it is music-to-masturbate-by.
JRW <j...@0spam.gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Qey89.245$J47.29907@stones...
Walt Davidson
wrote:
>It's not a question of "if it were true" - just look in your
>dictionary.
>
>This is what the 'New Shorter Oxford Dictionary' of 1997 says:
>
>taxi /"taksi/ n. & v.E20.
>[Colloq. abbrev. of TAXIMETER. In sense 2 directly f. the vb.]A n.
>1 More fully taxi-cab. A motor- car licensed to ply for hire and usu.
>fitted with a taximeter. E20.b A (small) passenger aeroplane, a
>taxiplane; a taxi-boat. colloq. E20.
>
>Argue the point with them old son.
Yes, but nowhere does it say the spelling is taxi' (or taxi's in
the plural)!
Frank Turner-Smith
Brain Reay <@> wrote in message
<3d634...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>...
DrBoris
Brain Reay <@> wrote in message
> What is "nasty" about appealing for _ALL_ innocent people
> to be protected from those arrogant fools who think that
> their way of life allows them to kill innocent people?
>
> As to "ejecting" your comment is a clear condemnation of
> everything that is the masturbation of the Brit monarchy.
>
> As to other people's children, there is a wild and aggressive
> group loitering on the green outside every day. If only one
> was abducted, the problem would be solved!
>
Your sick views on 'other people's children (sic.)', are
not shared by the vast majority of the world's population.
My advice to you is to seek professional help.
Frank Turner-Smith
user of the west side of the M25, I see there a much more serious hazard in
the form of a ludicrous "variable speed limit". For the information of
anyone who has never had the pleasure of driving on one of the world's most
dangerous motorways, it is necessary now to check an overhead speed limit
indicator every few hundred yards and then check your Speedo to ensure your
legality. These speed limit signs, one for each lane, are mounted on an
overhead gantry together with a camera just in case you miss one! As seems
to be the case with speed cameras generally, people brake sharply just
before the timing marks on the road and then accelerate when clear of them,
surely any idiot can see that this causes accidents! I'm told though, that
this system was introduced to improve road safety! Personally I find it a
far greater distraction than my mobile phone, which spends most of my
journey in the holder thoughtfully provided by my car manufacturer!
73 de Frank G3VKI
Walt Davidson wrote in message
<1jp3musk8dkhogjs3...@4ax.com>...
>It seems, as I predicted a year ago, that a total ban on the use of
>mobile phones whilst driving is in the offing. This will include
>*any* use of mobile phones ... hand-held or not. There is talk on BBC
>News this morning of a 9-point penalty and a fine of £500 - £1000 for
>a first offence. It is claimed that there is "overwhelming public
>support" for such legislation.
>
>If this new law is introduced, surely it will apply to the use of
>radio communications equipment whilst driving , too. No?
way@co.uk Andy
"Frank Turner-Smith" <frank.tur...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:3d635738$1...@pull.gecm.com...
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>taxi /"taksi/ n. & v.E20.
>>[Colloq. abbrev. of TAXIMETER. In sense 2 directly f. the vb.]A n.
>>1 More fully taxi-cab. A motor- car licensed to ply for hire and usu.
>>fitted with a taximeter. E20.b A (small) passenger aeroplane, a
>>taxiplane; a taxi-boat. colloq. E20.
>>
>>Argue the point with them old son.
>
>Yes, but nowhere does it say the spelling is taxi' (or taxi's in
>the plural)!
Nobody suggested it was. Your argument is based on the word TAXI as a
complete word in itself. But as is clearly indicated in the reference
above, TAXI is a colloquial abbreviation of the word TAXIMETER
The plural of meter is meters. Agreed?
Common sense suggests that the plural of taximeter is taximeters.
Agreed?
Therefore I refer you to my earlier posting:
}Taxi is an abbreviation of the word *taximeter* or the
}words *taxi-cab* so the apostrophe is there to represent the
}missing letters, meter or -cab.
I suppose I could have written originally:
"Police and other city services, ambulances, taximeters AND radio
amateurs"
But no doubt the average pedant infesting this newsgroup would have
found something to complain about in that.
Old Nick - Obvious, oblivious, stating.... Oh work it out for
yourself.
p.s. I'm disappointed that nobody proposed the far more logical
argument that the plural of TAXI should be TAXIES. That could have
provided for endless weeks of reasoned debate. ;-)
y young
"Brain Reay" <@> wrote in message
> Is it a sign of sickness to value human life and to
> decry the loss of innocent life without those being
> responsible for that loss being punished?
>
> I do not think so.
>
> Lilibet Windsor and her brown-tongued acolytes
> kill innocent people all the time. Have they some
> special right to do so? Are their victims less valued
> as humans than a couple of dead children?
>
> I do not think so.
>
> Lilibet Windsor seems to think so. No doubt we
> shall hear of her sending her "condolences" in
> a great outburst of publ;ic hypocrisy, ignoring the many innocent
> people whose deaths she has been directly responsible for?
>
> While on the subject, once again the plods are embarrassed
> by their own incompetence and have picked on two innocent
> victims. Have we learned nothing from the case of the Birmingham 6?
> They've got no evidence, as is clear from the number of times
> that they're going back to the Magistrates Court for time extensions.
>
>He spends too much time Massdebating to have kids
J.
>On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:29:23 GMT, nordl...@hotmail.com (J.) wrote:
>
>>>In the city of New York, where a similar law is already in force.
>>>Police and other city services, ambulances, taxi's [taxis] AND radio
>
>Thanks for adding the bit in brackets, even though it is grammatically
>incorrect.
>Taxi is an abbreviation of the word of the word *taximeter* or the
>words *taxi-cab* so the apostrophe is there to represent the
>missing letters, meter or -cab.
Pure nonsense.
Steve Bainbridge
> From: "Brain Reay" <@>
> If there is an issue of safety, then I cannot understand
> the emergency services and the po lice farces being
Strewt, a nearly sensible answer. Most of the emergency service vehicles have a
second man/woman who is the radio operator, the driver does just that, drive.
Before you say anything, motor cycle, police, paramedics use headsets in the
helmets with a PTT on the handle bars, so both hands are in control of the
vehicle.
73
Steve
J.
>J. <nordl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d626d70...@news.freeserve.net...
No I didn't!
>>Mark G0HZT ...now silent key !!! A very good friend was " murdered "
>>by a woman, driving while on a mobile `phone, who didn`t see him on his
>>motor cycle trike ( Biker ) ... didn`t stop, and apparenly, carried on
>>without stopping and still arguing into her mobile `phone !!!! ... amazing...
>>she wasn`t even aware !!!!
>Not so important in the case of bikers who as a group
>are dangerous and selfish. Anybody who creams a biker
>(as anybody who creams a plod as on the M4 a
>couple of days ago) is doing us all a favour.
You need medical help more than anything.
Lee
isn`t it ??? ...that woman probably wondered where the dents on her car came
from as she was so busy on her `phone ...and probably got hell off her
husband !!! ....
She apparently, was totally unaware of what she`d done, as it was a
glancing blow , ... enough to unbalance a motor trike , ...which is
inherantly unstable anyway , ... ever driven a " Plastic Pig " Reliant three
wheeler ???? :-(( .
Lee.
G6ZSG / M3ZSG .
"J." <nordl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d626d70...@news.freeserve.net...
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:11:01 GMT, "Lee" <leemo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >First thing we`ve fully agreed on Walt , ... as a car driver , i leave my
> >mobile `phone in the glove box ... SWITCHED OFF ... so i can concentrate
on
> >avoiding other idiot drivers totally unaware of other road users , ... i
> >also enjoy motor scooters and you really are aware of other drivers "Bad"
> >habits when scooting .....Can`t wait for the new law to be passed ...
> >
> >Mark G0HZT ...now silent key !!! A very good friend was " murdered "
by
> >a woman, driving while on a mobile `phone, who didn`t see him on his
motor
> >cycle trike ( Biker ) ... didn`t stop, and apparenly, carried on without
> >stopping and still arguing into her mobile `phone !!!! ... amazing... she
> >wasn`t even aware !!!!
>
> I expect she got away with a caution?
>
J.
>A copy of his recent post is on its way to his ISP. I wonder what his
>local newspaper might make of it?
Let's pass it on to his local newspaper then. With name and
address, of course.
Lee
fairly fit enough to drive or even ride the distance, ... to discuss a few
of the finer points of compassion with you as you do need talking to
!!!..Badly ...
.
And , incidentally , ...i also have 5 children ...3 daughters ...and 6 Grand
children - 4 girls 8months to "10 years " of age , ... say something about
that .... PLEASE !!!!! You sad sack of SHIT !!!!...................
Lee.
G6ZSG / M3ZSG .
"Brain Reay" <@> wrote in message
news:3d634386$2...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Lee
> I can understand emergency services and taxis being exempt, but
> why, logically, amateurs? How can using a mobile 'phone be
> distracting and amateur radio not be distracting?
>
Eh !!! did you read my previous post about a microphone and a steering wheel
????...
Apparently , emergency services are exempt in America , which makes you as
stupid as the Yanks !!!!....
It isn`t the vehicle that kills it`s the " drivers actions " ... no matter
what their profession !!!!
Lee
But whichever , I do agree totally with your statement ... It`s like a law
for the rich and one for the poor...
Mobile `phone ban while driving ..... across the board .... no exemptions,
... unless parked safely !!!!! ........
Lee.
G6ZSG / M3ZSG .
"Brain Reay" <@> wrote in message
news:3d634...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Fred
problems!
Regards
Fred
"Ged" <ge...@morpheous.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uNGoVmCo...@morpheous.fsnet.co.uk...
> This will probably be the last time I agree with anything you say but
> you are correct. I have defended Gareths right to speak his mind on many
> occasions mainly against individuals like yourself, who hate seeing
> other peoples views. I think his posting is reprehensible.
>
> --
> Ged
Fred
increase in sales of handsfree kits, In my place of work they have been
fitted to all company vehicles for the last two years. I say supposed
because as it stands, I don't believe the law is being enforced-exemptions,
be they for emergency traffic/hams etc. or penalties were never clarified in
the initial legislation
Fred
"Lee" <leemo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BLq89.758$1r6.31...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> It will Gerald!!, too many deaths attributed to driving without due care
...
> ie ... using a mobile phone while driving !!! :-((
>
> 73 . Lee.
>
> G6ZSG / M3ZSG .
Walt Davidson
>>Thanks for adding the bit in brackets, even though it is grammatically
>>incorrect.
>>Taxi is an abbreviation of the word of the word *taximeter* or the
>>words *taxi-cab* so the apostrophe is there to represent the
>>missing letters, meter or -cab.
>
>Pure nonsense.
Exactly.
Walt Davidson
<Steve.Ba...@m1swb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Before you say anything, motor cycle, police, paramedics use headsets in the
>helmets with a PTT on the handle bars, so both hands are in control of the
>vehicle.
That, too, is hazardous because it impairs the driver's ability to
hear warning sounds, such as vehicle horns, sirens, bicycle bells,
etc. It's as bad as driving with a walkman headset on.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
You can justify that statement of course? Go on then.
Old Nick.
p.s. Ignore Walt's gibberish about the the singular of taxi's having
to be taxi' - now that really is pure nonsense.
Consider the word PHOTOGRAPH.
The plural of which is PHOTOGRAPHS
It is perfectly acceptable to use the abrreviation
PHOTO for the singular and PHOTO'S for the plural.
You don't use the word PHOTO' in the singular and you certainly don't
use the word PHOTOS for the plural.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:54:10 GMT, nordl...@hotmail.com (J.) wrote:
>
>>>Thanks for adding the bit in brackets, even though it is grammatically
>>>incorrect.
>>>Taxi is an abbreviation of the word of the word *taximeter* or the
>>>words *taxi-cab* so the apostrophe is there to represent the
>>>missing letters, meter or -cab.
>>
>>Pure nonsense.
>
>Exactly.
>
>73 de G3NYY
Nonsense?
Which bit don't you understand old son?
Which dictionary definition don't you agree with?
Old Nick.
Gary
>On Wednesday, 21 Aug 2002 13:04:46 -500, "Steve Bainbridge"
><Steve.Ba...@m1swb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Before you say anything, motor cycle, police, paramedics use headsets in the
>>helmets with a PTT on the handle bars, so both hands are in control of the
>>vehicle.
>
>That, too, is hazardous because it impairs the driver's ability to
>hear warning sounds, such as vehicle horns, sirens, bicycle bells,
>etc. It's as bad as driving with a walkman headset on.
>
One London emergency service has either a dual crew or handsfree
(including motorcycle) radios. I'm not sure how they are trained but I
expect they are asked only to use the radio while it is safe to do so.
--
Gary (V1.05b)
CB500S in dustmans bib yellow
http://members.ud.com/services/teams/team_members.htm?id=1E7D8114-C668-4CD4-88EC-480FDD22412E&ord=POINTS
email is false
Brain Reay
obsessed. You, however, seemed to be obsessed in
the last couple of days by infantile remarks.
Shame on you.
Grow up.
Frank Turner-Smith <frank.tur...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:3d635738$1...@pull.gecm.com...
Brain Reay
Ian Jackson
luc...@eternal-flames.gov writes
The erroneous use of the apostrophe in the spelling of a plural is known
as 'the grocer's (or even 'grocers') apostrophe', after their habit of
writing things like 'apple's', 'potato's' (even 'potatoe's') on
blackboards outside their shops, at market stalls etc. Strangely, in
Dutch (and German?) they DO use the apostrophe on those rare occasions
when they use the letter S in a plural, and not when it indicates a
possessive. I always cringe when I when I see it used incorrectly, but
then, I'm perfect.
73,
Ian.
N.B.....Remove upper-case letters from my address.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<ianja...@g3ohxSPAM-ME-NOT.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The erroneous use of the apostrophe in the spelling of a plural is known
>as 'the grocer's (or even 'grocers') apostrophe', after their habit of
>writing things like 'apple's', 'potato's' (even 'potatoe's') on
>blackboards outside their shops, at market stalls etc. Strangely, in
>Dutch (and German?) they DO use the apostrophe on those rare occasions
>when they use the letter S in a plural, and not when it indicates a
>possessive. I always cringe when I when I see it used incorrectly,
Fascinating! Not relevant in this instance, but nontheless
fascinating. :-)
Here the debate is over the use of the apostrophe in the word TAXI'S
to indicate that letters have been dropped from the word TAXIMETERS
(or TAXICABS), in the same way that PHOTO'S is a shortened
PHOTOGRAPHS.
I've quoted the references I base my argument on and challenged those
who disagree to put forward their references.
The result would appear to be the oxymoron of "silence speaking
volumes"
>but then, I'm perfect.
Yep! There are so few of us left. :-)
Nick.
p.s. Potatoes ? So you're a fan of great Dan Quayle eh? ;-)
Gary Cavie
"Andy" <No w...@co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajsti6$ht1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> If anyone considers a post offensive, then they may wish to complain to
the
> ISP. As an example, for the post below, it would appear to be Tiscali.
(Look
> at the post, do 'properties' then 'message source'.
> http://www.tiscali.co.uk/aboutus/contact/tiscali/cust_service.html Suggest
> you include message source and a copy of the message.
> I'm not suggesting you do this of course, just telling you how to.........
>
Thanks for the link Andy - let's hope it does some good. Any other
suggestions as to who else might be interested?
What a sick bastard
Gary Cavie
"Brain Reay" <@> wrote in message
>
> While on the subject, once again the plods are embarrassed
> by their own incompetence and have picked on two innocent
> victims. Have we learned nothing from the case of the Birmingham 6?
> They've got no evidence, as is clear from the number of times
> that they're going back to the Magistrates Court for time extensions.
>
And what a surprise, Gareth's apparent hero turns out to be mentally ill...
Maybe the two of them should be sharing accomodation?
Walt Davidson
wrote:
>Consider the word PHOTOGRAPH.
>The plural of which is PHOTOGRAPHS
>
>It is perfectly acceptable to use the abrreviation
>PHOTO for the singular and PHOTO'S for the plural.
>
>You don't use the word PHOTO' in the singular and you certainly don't
>use the word PHOTOS for the plural.
What a load of drivel. You are clearly making it up as you go along!
Gary Cavie
"Dave" <d...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajtvv5$1e50ph$1...@ID-17549.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Steve Bainbridge" <Steve.Ba...@m1swb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message
> news:MSGID_2=3a250=2f220=40fidonet...@fidonet.org...
> > Hi
> >
> > > From: "Brain Reay" <@>
> >
> >
> > > Why all this fuss about this minor loss of other people's
> > > children?
>
> Let's hope he's never a parent
>
Absolutely - the thought of those mutated genes passing on any further...
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>You don't use the word PHOTO' in the singular and you certainly don't
>>use the word PHOTOS for the plural.
>
>What a load of drivel. You are clearly making it up as you go along!
So back your argument up old son. I've quoted my references, where
are yours?
Maybe you should just realise you are in a hole and stop digging. ;-)
Just a friendly suggestion you understand.
Old Nick.
p.s. Perhaps you should check your own inaccurate and inconsistent
use of the apostrophe.
Gary Cavie
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:bu45mucir9g7lfmil...@4ax.com...
>
> This is what the 'New Shorter Oxford Dictionary' of 1997 says:
>
> taxi /"taksi/ n. & v.E20.
> [Colloq. abbrev. of TAXIMETER. In sense 2 directly f. the vb.]A n.
> 1 More fully taxi-cab. A motor- car licensed to ply for hire and usu.
> fitted with a taximeter. E20.b A (small) passenger aeroplane, a
> taxiplane; a taxi-boat. colloq. E20.
>
> Argue the point with them old son.
>
> Nick.
Surely that defines taxi as a noun in it's own right - hence the 'n'?
patndave
"Frank Turner-Smith" <frank.tur...@baesystems.com> wrote
in message news:3d636982$1...@pull.gecm.com...
> Apparently mobile phones constitute a "serious distraction".
Compared to the following, I can well understand why they are
not.
> As a regular
> user of the west side of the M25, I see there a much more
serious hazard in
> the form of a ludicrous "variable speed limit". For the
information of
> anyone who has never had the pleasure of driving on one of the
world's most
> dangerous motorways,
I did try the M25 once and that was enough. It was over hyped
and not that busy.
Try the M6 in Stafordshire?Cheshire/Greater Manchester or the
M60 that was the M62, for busy/dangerous motorways, thank you.
> it is necessary now to check an overhead speed limit
> indicator every few hundred yards and then check your Speedo
to ensure your
> legality. These speed limit signs, one for each lane, are
mounted on an
> overhead gantry together with a camera just in case you miss
one!
I can see that would be fun, when they are constantly changing
the limit. Good luck in getting through without a ticket.
> As seems
> to be the case with speed cameras generally, people brake
sharply just
> before the timing marks on the road and then accelerate when
clear of them,
On normal roads, I can see no reason for this. The driver either
keeps to the speed limit or he/she should be banned for 12
months.
But I have seen the same thing happen on 'normal motorways'.
Police at the side of the road, or driving at about 60 MPH
usually causes drivers to slow down from the legal speed limit.
I don't have a clue as to why.
> surely any idiot can see that this causes accidents!
Police presence on the hard shoulder did cause me to have a
crash. The small van in front braked very hard and went into a
spin, after the traffic had slowed down in front of him,
resulting in him going out of control and driving head on into
the crash barrier between the two cariageways.
Even the police driver that was at the side of me, at the time,
said that when he went into that skid, there was nothing I could
do. What better whitness could I hope for?
> I'm told though, that
> this system was introduced to improve road safety! Personally
I find it a
> far greater distraction than my mobile phone, which spends
most of my
> journey in the holder thoughtfully provided by my car
manufacturer!
> 73 de Frank G3VKI
You have my sympathy
DE G6 KHP
Dave
In the wild and wide empty spaces of the North West
patndave
"Walt Davidson" <wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f3k7muk0gsdji0gr5...@4ax.com...
> On Wednesday, 21 Aug 2002 13:04:46 -500, "Steve Bainbridge"
> <Steve.Ba...@m1swb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Before you say anything, motor cycle, police, paramedics use
headsets in the
> >helmets with a PTT on the handle bars, so both hands are in
control of the
> >vehicle.
>
> That, too, is hazardous because it impairs the driver's
ability to
> hear warning sounds, such as vehicle horns, sirens, bicycle
bells,
> etc. It's as bad as driving with a walkman headset on.
Driving while listening to 'walkman' type head sets has been
illegal as long as I can remember. However, using one ear piece
is allowed.
How do the deaf get away with driving?
DE G6 KHP
Dave
patndave
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:40:28 +0100, "harrogate"
> <harr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >I see no difference between someone listening to the Monday
Play or Today/PM
> >on Radio 4 or having a conversation with a passenger from
having a telephone
> >conversation on a full handsfree system. The distraction/loss
of driving
> >conecntration effects are the same.
>
> I don't agree. There is a world of a difference between
listening
> passively to a radio broadcast, and participating in a
telephone or
> radio conversation where you have to answer questions, develop
> arguments, etc.
Listen passively to a broadcast that is interjected with an
advert that has motor horns in it. I guarantee that your driving
concentration will be took away by looking for the cause of the
honking horn. Stereo radio at its worst. :-((
It gets me every time.
> >Note the phrase above: there are far too many people using
so-called
> >'personal' h/f earpiece types - that must be worse since it
blocks the
> >hearing in one ear.
>
> This is true, and the use of headsets was singled out for a
specific
> ban in the context of mobile phones.
Are you suggesting that if you get wax in one ear, you should
not drive?
> > Then there is
> >eating/drinking/thinking.......................
>
> A number of people have already been prosecuted under existing
> legislation for eating chocolate biscuits, drinking Coca Cola,
etc,
> whilst driving.
Expanding on this. What about scratching an itch?
Is it preferable to live with the itch, or take a hand from the
wheel (forbid the thought of driving with one hand) and take
away the irritation that is bothering you?
Expanding on this, what about the other times you need to take
one hand from the wheel?
Last on the list, at 88 years old, how much driving do you do
these days ;-)
DE G6 KHP
Dave
G.Scott
care etc , or , in extreme cases , dangerous driving, or causing death
by.......
There are 13 different laws to cover it , none of which work .why do we need
another?
each case should be judged on its merit ie someone stationary in a traffic
jam phoning home is not the same as some nutter doing 90 in the outside
lane with a phone in his lug and his paperwork over the wheel! if , however
, a `blanket law were introduced both would be treated equally. Why is
everyone in such a rush to give the police even more power when you all know
they will abuse it!
They are doing so now! ( national news 17/08/02) Taxi driver fined for using
the factory fitted cigar lighter in his car, Birmingham man charged for
phoning his office ,whilst parked outside, to ask security to open the gate!
How long till we are not allowed to talk to passengers? Its not as black and
white as it seems!
"Howard Long" <how...@howardlongxxx.com> wrote in message
news:ajtvcr$m0b$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> Ged said
>
> > I, myself, have been driving for over four decades
>
> I'd take a break. You must be tired out.
>
> Howard G6LVB
>
>
G.Scott
"Steve Bainbridge" <Steve.Ba...@m1swb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MSGID_2=3a250=2f220=40fidonet...@fidonet.org...
>
> > From: "Brain Reay" <@>
>
> > If there is an issue of safety, then I cannot understand
> > the emergency services and the po lice farces being
have a
> second man/woman who is the radio operator, the driver does just that,
drive.
> Before you say anything, motor cycle, police, paramedics use headsets in
the
> helmets with a PTT on the handle bars, so both hands are in control of the
> vehicle.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
The English Mistress
will be along shortly to explain why.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:14:53 +0000 (UTC), luc...@eternal-flames.gov
wrote:
d.bryant
wrote:
>Nobody suggested it was. Your argument is based on the word TAXI as a
>complete word in itself. But as is clearly indicated in the reference
>above, TAXI is a colloquial abbreviation of the word TAXIMETER
>
>The plural of meter is meters. Agreed?
>
>Common sense suggests that the plural of taximeter is taximeters.
>Agreed?
while all of that is true the fact is that most people right or wrong,
use taxi as a complete word and use taxis for meaning two of them,
what as any of this got to do with amateur radio.
david.
Lee
Hands free kits are perfectly legal " AND SAFE " ...at least as safe as
talking to a passenger can be !!!...
Hand held mobile `phone use whilst driving constitutes driving without due
care and attention !!! .... punishment is too small !!! .... it should be
put next in league with " Drink Driving " , ....carrying a similar
punishment for all !!! ... emergency services included , ...should use
"Hands free mobile `phone system " !!!!! ....
No exemptions , ... no excuses :-(( .
Lee.
G6ZSG / M3ZSG .
"Fred" <RoundyDELETEAN...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xiQ89.937$cP3....@news.iol.ie...
Lee
" Taxi`s "...
Lee. !8^/}.....
G6ZSG / M3ZSG.
"The English Mistress" <between...@nd.mattress> wrote in message
news:3d64aa85...@news.internet-today.co.uk...
Lee
I know Steve , it`s unreal , ... i`m convinced he`s schizoid `cos he
sometimes appears sane ....
Weird !!!... 8^}} .
Lee
"G.Scott" <g.s...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:I6X89.40134$DG5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > > The proposed ban is to include hands free sets! < < < <
In that case, they should ban passengers too, ... as they are far more
distracting than " Handsfree " mobile `phone use !!! ... :-(( .
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
wrote:
ROTFLMAO!
Is this a wind up?
You can't seriously be attempting to debate grammar or punctuation?
Old Nick.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:14:53 +0000 (UTC), luc...@eternal-flames.gov
>wrote:
>
>>So back your argument up old son. I've quoted my references, where
>>are yours?
>
>You have quoted plenty of references, but none that supports your
>argument.
>
>73 de G3NYY
You say that I haven't quoted references to support my arguments.
So how would you describe the following?
N.B. each quoted reference is prefixed with an }
1. That an apostrophe can legitimately be used to show letters have
been left out of a word.
}apostrophe /<schwa>"pQstr<schwa>fi/ n.2 Also <unknown>- phus.M16.
[Fr., or late L apostrophus f. Gk apostrophos mark of elision, use as
n. (sc. prosodia accent) of adj. <nfasp>turned away’, f. apostrephein:
see prec.]<unknown>1 The omission of one or more letters in a word.
M16–M17.2 A sign (’) used to indicate the omission of one or more
letters or numerals (as in can’t, o’er, ’cello; spirit of ’76 (i.e.
1776)), or in marking the possessive case (man’s, boys’). L16.
(New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)
2. That the word 'taxi' is an accepted abbreviated form of the
longer words 'taximeter' and 'taxicab'
}taxi /"taksi/ n. & v.E20. [Colloq. abbrev. of TAXIMETER. In sense 2
directly f. the vb.]A n. 1 More fully taxi-cab. A motor- car licensed
to ply for hire and usually fitted with a taximeter. E20.b A (small)
passenger aeroplane, a taxiplane; a taxi-boat. colloq. E20.
(New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)
The first quoted reference unambiguously states that an apostrophe can
be used to indicate: "The omission of one or more letters in a
word."
Do you accept that as valid?
The second quoted reference is in respect of the word taxi, again it
unambiguously states that it is a "Colloquial abbreviation of the word
taximeter."
Do you accept that as valid?
If I choose to use the word TAXIMETERS and to write it in an
abbreviated form, indicating that some letters (in this case METER)
have been omitted, how would you suggest I write it?
If you can propose an argument of greater validity do so and I'll
accept it, since to be honest the whole thing matters not one iota to
me. All I'm attempting to do is raise the level of debate, above the
inane "Stupid boy!" and "Wrong!" comments, so favoured by some sad
individuals.
Old Nick.
Lee
meters (plural ) the word meter ( singular ) becomes meters (plural ) ...Cab
( singular ) Cabs ( plural ) ...Taxicab ( singular ) Taxicabs (plural ) ...
No such word as taxis or taxi`s !!!! ... unless you`re uneducated ;^O)
...
Tax cabriolet = vehicular carrier of passengers for payment, (tax) nickname
taxi plural becomes taxies ...
No Comma anywhere !!! ... Sorry Nick !!! !8^o) .
Lee... Ducking the flames heh,heh ...
G6ZSG / M3ZSG .
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:96j9mugoh6idsbfgn...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:40:49 +0100, Walt Davidson
> <wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:14:53 +0000 (UTC), luc...@eternal-flames.gov
> >wrote:
> >
> >>So back your argument up old son. I've quoted my references, where
> >>are yours?
> >
> >You have quoted plenty of references, but none that supports your
> >argument.
> >
> >73 de G3NYY
>
> You say that I haven't quoted references to support my arguments.
> So how would you describe the following?
>
> N.B. each quoted reference is prefixed with an }
>
> 1. That an apostrophe can legitimately be used to show letters have
> been left out of a word.
>
> }apostrophe /<schwa>"pQstr<schwa>fi/ n.2 Also <unknown>- phus.M16.
> [Fr., or late L apostrophus f. Gk apostrophos mark of elision, use as
> n. (sc. prosodia accent) of adj. <nfasp>turned away', f. apostrephein:
> see prec.]<unknown>1 The omission of one or more letters in a word.
> M16-M17.2 A sign (') used to indicate the omission of one or more
Lee
"Lee" <leemo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SQ599.3702$g8.53...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> TAXI (singular ) TAXIES ( plural ).... if you leave taxi out of taxi
> meters (plural ) the word meter ( singular ) becomes meters (plural )
...Cab
> ( singular ) Cabs ( plural ) ...Taxicab ( singular ) Taxicabs (plural )
...
>
> No such word as taxis or taxi`s !!!! ... unless you`re uneducated ;^O)
> ...
>
> Tax cabriolet = vehicular carrier of passengers for payment, (tax)
nickname
> taxi plural becomes taxies ...
>
> No Comma anywhere !!! ... Sorry Nick !!! !8^o) .
>
> Lee... Ducking the flames heh,heh ...
>
> G6ZSG / M3ZSG .
>
>
>
Taking that a litlle further, if, you think of Tax , as in income tax , then
multiple tax becomes Taxes ... just an observation ...
Matthew Haigh
<wal...@tiscali.co.uk> writes
>On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:28:16 +0100, "G.Scott"
><g.s...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The proposed ban is to include hands free sets!
>
>conversation on the phone that is said to be the safety hazard ... not
>the holding of the handset.
The two are different issues. Holding a phone limits your movements, and
can cause problems doing things like changing gear, turning around sharp
corners etc. (and before anyone comments about disabled drivers - if the
disability is enough to affect the control of the car then there are
usually modifications made to the car).
Having an in-depth conversation can affect your conversation, especially
if to someone who is not in the car (a passenger will normally shut up
if the road conditions become tricky).
>Obviously the same must apply to talking
>through repeaters whilst driving!
Ah, but talking through a repeater you aren't expected to make any sense
:0)
FWIW I use a full handsfree on the phone, and a headset with locking PTT
for the radio. If I take a phone call in the car, I let my caller know I
am driving, and if it is getting too complicated offer to call them
back.
Matt
--
Matthew Haigh --$matthaigh{News02}$@haigh.org--
GCRSoft, providing SMS solutions since 1996...
http://www.gcrsoft.com - SMSMaster messaging software
http://www.moretext.com - managed SMS, including bulk & incoming