Texting while driving, this has to stop

Sinbad said:
Should I be driving a company vehicle, yes absolutely. A branded one - even more so.

Also, since the job I am in requires no criminal record, then should I be convicted of ANY crime I will lose my job regardless of circumstances. Therefore, it's in my interest not to break the law. So I don't... Simple, eh?
Click to expand...

You are being disingenuous and dramatic. A traffic offence is not a crime. My degree and profession requires the same (so let's not try compare dicks here ok?).
And yes. Simple. I whole heartedly agree.
 
Spunkywunky1 said:
I have one simple question for the two of you:

So you will agree that, should either of you be caught using your cell while driving from now on, it will be acceptable for you to be fired from your jobs?
Click to expand...

Like Sinbad said, if I'm caught bringing my company into disrepute then I'll just have to face the music.
 
cpu. said:
... In the pic the wheels are non-blurry and therefore could be in stationary position too. You can't just fire people, because of what someone said and then use a photo that could go either way to back it up.
Click to expand...
Wow, I've been hanging onto the hope that I bought a decent phone recently, and from what you pointed out, it seems like it is. But, to answer the implied question: we were in motion all right. There are two of us that would attest to that, should it come to that (which, let's face it, it won't.)
 
Spunkywunky1 said:
You are being disingenuous and dramatic. A traffic offence is not a crime. My degree and profession requires the same (so let's not try compare dicks here ok?).
And yes. Simple. I whole heartedly agree.
Click to expand...

Negligent driving IS in fact a crime.

So is holding a cellphone:


National Road Traffic Act, 1996
National Road Traffic Regulations, 1999
Chapter X : Rules of the road and matters relating thereto
Part I : Rules of the road
308A. Prohibition on use of communication device while driving





1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a public road –

a) while holding a cellular or mobile telephone or any other communication device in one or both hands or with any other part of the body;

b) while using or operating a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device unless such a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device is affixed to the vehicle or is part of the fixture in the vehicle and remains so affixed while being used or operated, or is specially adapted or designed to be affixed to the person of the driver as headgear, and is so used, to enable such driver to use or operate such telephone or communication device without holding it in the manner contemplated in paragraph (a), and remains so affixed while being used or operated.

2) The word "headgear" includes for the purpose of this regulation a device which is specially designed or adapted to allow the driver to use a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device in such a manner that he or she does not hold it in one or both hands or with any other part of the body, and which is connected to the cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device, directly or indirectly, while being fitted to or attached to one or both ears of the driver.
 
bdt said:
Wow, I've been hanging onto the hope that I bought a decent phone recently, and from what you pointed out, it seems like it is. But, to answer the implied question: we were in motion all right. There are two of us that would attest to that, should it come to that (which, let's face it, it won't.)
Click to expand...

A left field question - is this woman someone you have had, or wanted to have, a relationship with?
 
Spunkywunky1 said:
A left field question - is this woman someone you have had, or wanted to have, a relationship with?
Click to expand...

Wow, every possible angle to deflect from the the fact that the woman is, in fact, blatantly breaking the law in a company branded vehicle. And you have the cheek to say I'm being disingenuous.
 
Sinbad said:
Wow, every possible angle to deflect from the the fact that the woman is, in fact, blatantly breaking the law in a company branded vehicle. And you have the cheek to say I'm being disingenuous.
Click to expand...

why, oh why are you so evidently desperate to protect the OP? It's rather strange. Very obvious, but still strange...
 
Spunkywunky1 said:
One: I thank you for your honesty.

Two: What you did to this woman is appalling.
Click to expand...
And, in kind, how about you lay it down: just how capable of scrutiny is your driving? As to what I've done: yes, it sucks to be her right now (or not, this may end up going absolutely nowhere outside of MyBB) which would make me as having taken far more flak for this than she would. But if some kind of meaningful consequences come down on her, maybe that will ripple through her life and make for better driving habits. Which are needed in the worst way in this country.
 
Spunkywunky1 said:
why, oh why are you so evidently desperate to protect the OP? It's rather strange. Very obvious, but still strange...
Click to expand...

What's even more strange is how you don't see the irony of your post seeing that you seem so evidently desperate to protect the criminal :).
 
Sinbad said:
Negligent driving IS in fact a crime.

So is holding a cellphone:


National Road Traffic Act, 1996
National Road Traffic Regulations, 1999
Chapter X : Rules of the road and matters relating thereto
Part I : Rules of the road
308A. Prohibition on use of communication device while driving





1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a public road –

a) while holding a cellular or mobile telephone or any other communication device in one or both hands or with any other part of the body;

b) while using or operating a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device unless such a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device is affixed to the vehicle or is part of the fixture in the vehicle and remains so affixed while being used or operated, or is specially adapted or designed to be affixed to the person of the driver as headgear, and is so used, to enable such driver to use or operate such telephone or communication device without holding it in the manner contemplated in paragraph (a), and remains so affixed while being used or operated.

2) The word "headgear" includes for the purpose of this regulation a device which is specially designed or adapted to allow the driver to use a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device in such a manner that he or she does not hold it in one or both hands or with any other part of the body, and which is connected to the cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device, directly or indirectly, while being fitted to or attached to one or both ears of the driver.
Click to expand...

My question is whether it is a criminal offence or a traffic offence....
 
Spunkywunky1 said:
A left field question - is this woman someone you have had, or wanted to have, a relationship with?
Click to expand...
Fair question (for a change) :rolleyes: No, don't know her from a bar of soap. Which makes the relationship aspect moot. Hell, I didn't even know about the existence of Motorite as a company until somewhere around 13h00 today.
 
bdt said:
Wow, I've been hanging onto the hope that I bought a decent phone recently, and from what you pointed out, it seems like it is. But, to answer the implied question: we were in motion all right. There are two of us that would attest to that, should it come to that (which, let's face it, it won't.)
Click to expand...
In a few days when we hear the company name it will sound familiar and we will not remember why. So yes, why fire someone that created free publicity. :)
 
Another thread about people being irresponsible on the road. Another thread with posts trying to shift the blame. Jumping to the defense of the guilty motorist. I suppose if she had run over a skateboarder, for example, while texting, comments would have been made about how that skateboarder should not have been there... and accidents happen.... <SMH>


[EDIT: And people wonder why this is my new crusade...]
 
Last edited:
Spunkywunky1 said:
why, oh why are you so evidently desperate to protect the OP? It's rather strange. Very obvious, but still strange...
Click to expand...

Not protecting the op. disingenuous deflection again.

I am condemning the actions of the woman in the photo.
 
efitol said:
What's even more strange is how you don't see the irony of your post seeing that you seem so evidently desperate to protect the criminal :).
Click to expand...

For about the third time, it's not been about defending the lady. It's been about emailing her employers and most probably leading her to being fired. It's been about those going, "yeah, she deserves it" being guilty of doing the same thing themselves.

And criminal?
 
This thread is hilarious! :D (munches cheese and spring onion flavoured popcorns excitedly)
 
Spunkywunky1 said:
For about the third time, it's not been about defending the lady. It's been about emailing her employers and most probably leading her to being fired. It's been about those going, "yeah, she deserves it" being guilty of doing the same thing themselves.
Click to expand...

Really? You reckon she will be fired for her actions. Highly unlikely I reckon. If we are really lucky she will get told to please not text while driving as she has been spotted and it is not good for the company image. The reality is that it will possibly not even make it further than the email being read....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X