I have absolutely no idea as I was not made aware of the rules of the little game you are playing. If you feel we are now even then well done. Hey, you know what, you can claim to be the winner if you want, after all I have no idea what the rules are.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is the ultimate French toast topping?
Texting while driving, this has to stop
- Thread starter bdt
- Start date
I have absolutely no idea as I was not made aware of the rules of the little game you are playing. If you feel we are now even then well done. Hey, you know what, you can claim to be the winner if you want, after all I have no idea what the rules are.
Are you sucking this out of your thumb? She appears to be in public in the photo. My understanding is that anyone can take a photo of another in public. If you know of a law that states otherwise could you please share it.
EDIT: Some quick research of mine.
General info:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
Specific SA reference:
http://www.digitalphotographycourses.co.za/the-law-as-it-pertains-to-photographers-in-south-africa/
Without this law I could sue the photographer that takes a photo of the crowd at a rugby match, or concert. Or that photo that was published of me and my son at the Springbok world cup victory parade.
Last edited:
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
You are living in your own little world. Posting personal closeups without subject's permission is the quickest way to work yourself out of your house, car and whatever belongings you may have scraped together over the years! However, this is not why I am posting. You said the vehicle was moving at over 60kmh? If yes then there is something very wrong with the pic ! As the saying goes: liar, liar pants on fireI am a bit surprised no one notices the discrepancy.
Was he stalking her in her own home? If your argument had any merit, then the paparazzi would be broke.
They are getting sued regularly
It is not about taking the picture in a public place. It is about the intention for what the picture will be used. And for that you can sue someone. It is a subtle difference but it is a difference nevertheless. How would you like me taking a pic of you to have it distributed to gang who will murder you a day later. Or how about selling your pic to a advertising company and seeing yourself the next day on every street corner. Or how about someone making money out of your pic (this is where the suing of the paparazzi comes in). You see, there are exceptions to the rule which only a court can decide. Are you willing to take the risk? But that's not why I posted. Read the second part of my post and see if you have what it takes to notice the discrepancy.bdt
Executive Member
Spunky, instead of trolling back-channel where no-one can see your bullshit shenanigans, man up and air what you have to say out here. And have the courtesy to answer what has been directly asked of you, if you please.
Quintrix
Expert Member
OP - 1. did you use a camera or cell to take pic? If cell - what do you have
2. did you only take one pic - if no , please post more
2. did you only take one pic - if no , please post more
bdt
Executive Member
Just for you:You said the vehicle was moving at over 60kmh? If yes then there is something very wrong with the pic ! As the saying goes: liar, liar pants on fire
Which, if we calculate (1/1157.4)*60 we arrive at 0.052 sec the shutter was open, yes? Which is a short enough time frame for something like a rotating wheel to appear motionless?
bdt
Executive Member
Hi, it's a Jiayu G3 and no more, only the one.
bdt
Executive Member
The fidelity of the photo and my good name were being questioned, brought into disrepute; I felt compelled to defend.Did you bother to check the exIf of the pic you posted?
dj_jyno
Executive Member
For anyone who is condoning the action of the woman in the photo or using your cellphone while driving in general, consider this:
1) In 2008, an unlicensed driver crashed into my car, causing R30 000 damage. She wasn't insured, we never received our excess back.
2) In 2011, a woman on her cellphone crashed into the back of my brother's car, pushing him into the back of a Fortuner in stationary traffic. She was driving a rental car, about R40 000 damage to my brother's car, once again we lost our excess.
R70 000 damage due to people not obeying the law and keeping their cellphones stowed away while in motion. But it's all good, as long as you don't get caught? BS.
1) In 2008, an unlicensed driver crashed into my car, causing R30 000 damage. She wasn't insured, we never received our excess back.
2) In 2011, a woman on her cellphone crashed into the back of my brother's car, pushing him into the back of a Fortuner in stationary traffic. She was driving a rental car, about R40 000 damage to my brother's car, once again we lost our excess.
R70 000 damage due to people not obeying the law and keeping their cellphones stowed away while in motion. But it's all good, as long as you don't get caught? BS.
Getafix
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 1,371
- Reaction score
- 4
SauRoNZA
Honorary Master
And it's when I see this kind of thing that I once again must reiterate that speeding isn't the cause of our problems.
Someone paying 100% attention while doing a little bit more than the speed limit is infinitely safer than someone drinking/eating/texting/talking while driving.
Add lack of driver education when things do go wrong and unroadworthy cars to the mixture and speeding really isn't the thing we should be concerned about.
My phone is a GPS while I'm driving, nothing else. It gets put on silent and ignored until I get where I need to be.
Even my boss knows that I will not answer our standby phone while driving.
Someone paying 100% attention while doing a little bit more than the speed limit is infinitely safer than someone drinking/eating/texting/talking while driving.
Add lack of driver education when things do go wrong and unroadworthy cars to the mixture and speeding really isn't the thing we should be concerned about.
My phone is a GPS while I'm driving, nothing else. It gets put on silent and ignored until I get where I need to be.
Even my boss knows that I will not answer our standby phone while driving.
Kloofvreter
Honorary Master
You potential killer you.
Colin62
Executive Member
Firstly, I think it's actually 0.000864 seconds that the shutter was open. Not sure why you multiplied by 60?
If we assume a car with 185/70R14 tyres travelling at 60km/h, the wheel will rotate 0.015 revolutions in 0.864 milliseconds.
The edge of the wheel rim will travel just over 8mm in 0.864 milliseconds, and a point midway along the spokes (seven inches from the centre of the rim) will rotate a bit more than 4mm, so I reckon you'd see blurring at that speed. The spokes on those wheels are probably 20mm, and near the edge will have move 40% of that thickness in the time the shutter was open.
Therefore I conlude the following:-
Either the shutter speed was a lot faster than 0.8 milliseconds or the car wasn't going 60km/h when the pic was taken.
Even so, while driving a branded car, she was stupid to be caught doing it, and must not whine about facing the consequences.
All her defenders on here have missed the point - if you don't want to face the consequences, don't do it. Whether I do it or you do it or the judge in court does it is totally irrelevant, she did it and she got caught - it's still an offense even if the car is stopped at a robot.
Colin62
Executive Member
Could be.
I suppose to be 100% sure we'd need to take a few more pics at different rotation speeds and shutter speeds and compare the results.