A free app from Twitter that allows users to livestream video is being used by drivers to interact with followers while at the wheel, including in the UK, as the footage below shows.
The practice has led a US lawyer to warn that footage could be used in court against a motorist as evidence in the event of a collision caused by the driver being distracted.
The Periscope app, which is available for both iOS and Android devices, enables people to broadcast a live video stream to followers on the network, who can interact with them by posting messages which appear on the user’s device in real time, making it fully interactive.
UK Periscope users who use the app while at the wheel include a driver from delivery firm TNT, who broadcasts his thoughts on a range of issues to his followers.
On Tuesday, during an 18-minute broadcast on the social network, he was asked by one person watching whether he was using it while driving.
He assures his audience that he is able to concentrate on the road while using the app, and also gives his views on cycle safety, although as the following excerpts from the video we captured before it expired on Periscope show, he does not appear fully focused on the road.
We alerted TNT to the usage of the app by an employee while driving one of its vans, and a spokesman for the company told road.cc: “TNT takes the issue of road safety very seriously and have strict policies in place regarding driver behaviour and the use of mobile devices.
“Thank you for bringing this incident to our attention and we will be investigating further."
Periscope is used by media organisations including the BBC, and Sky journalist Kay Burley used it to broadcast behind-the-scenes footage from the party leaders’ debates before last month’s general election.
Less serious uses, according to this article from the Guardian, include people sharing livestreams of the content of their fridges or their pets, with cats and pugs proving most popular.
But it’s users who stream video of themselves driving that is attracting concern, with a blog post from California law firm Appel & Co earlier this month highlighting the dangers.
“Our initial research reveals that too many people are using this app while driving,” says the post’s author, Thomas G Appel.
“Just a simple search on twitter for “driving periscope” demonstrates the huge number of users who are using this new app while behind the wheel.
“Many users who use the app while driving are without any passengers and often respond to written comments, indicating that the driver may just be looking for company or someone to talk to while driving. While this might seem like a cool idea at first, it is actually a very unsafe practice.
“The truth is that drivers who use the Periscope app are constantly distracted. They fiddle with their cell phone to initiate the live stream, adjust the stream, chat with viewers and pinpoint the perfect filming position.”
Appel notes that many of the app’s features “encourage the videographer to interact with his audience,” and says “while Periscope has the potential to revolutionise the manner in which people communicate through social media and video journalism, it should never be used by someone who is behind the wheel.”
He adds: “It won’t be long before a Periscope live feed will provide us with live footage of an automobile accident as it occurs in real time. It remains to be seen whether the video captured from these accidents could be used in personal injury lawsuit against a careless driver.
“Would the Periscope users who viewed the driver’s Periscope feed serve as witnesses in the trial? Would this type of behavior call for punitive damages in a California lawsuit? How can Periscope engineers and designers discourage this type of behaviour?”
Since use of smartphones became widespread, road safety campaigners have highlighted the danger of motorists texting while at the wheel or surfing social media sites, with research indicating that it is more dangerous than driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.
Even those devices that are legally allowed to be used – hands-free mobile phones – need to be used in such a way that the driver is not distracted, otherwise they may face a charge of careless driving.
109 thoughts on “Live video broadcasting the latest in driver distraction – and it could be happening on a road near you (+ video)”
I’m not sure what I’m more
I’m not sure what I’m more amazed about:
1) The fact that a TNT driver is dumb enough to stream videos of himself whilst he drives (he won’t be driving for TNT much longer)
or
2) The fact that apparently people find this kind of shit entertaining and actually watch?
danthomascyclist wrote:I’m
Some people find big brother entertaining TV.
Let’s hope TNT do the right
Let’s hope TNT do the right thing and sack him, I can think of anything that could be more distracting X(
As I used to work for TNT
As I used to work for TNT they are very proud of their safety record and reminders are everywhere about it.
He will be sacked and should be, the arrogance of him beggars belief.
Hope he keeps his job. No
Hope he keeps his job. No mention of shouldn’t be on the road, should pay road tax etc.
“I can think of anything that could be more distracting ”
Well apart from the constant having to check the GPS to see where the next delivery is required..
Should we not pass that video
Should we not pass that video on to the relavant authorities, he has just self published himself committing a driving offence.
FATBEGGARONABIKE wrote:Should
and this is why punishments should be higher. For use on a mobile phone, whether this or another offence with one then should be 6 month ban and a forced resit of the driving test.
If people knew the punishment was that harsh (for example I lose my licence I get sacked) then you watch the offending go down.
ianrobo wrote:
…
If people
yes – but what chance is there of anyone getting collared whilst using their phone? you almost never see a Police officer around my way.
I appreciate these numpties are self-declaring live on the internet, but for the stiff deterrent (which I support) to be effective you have to stand some chance of actually being caught & prosecuted and right now there’s just no enforcement.
bring on driverless cars.
seems like a nice enough
seems like a nice enough bloke, just doesn’t understand how much of a distraction looking at his phone is. You could accuse around 95% of the driving population of the same thing. A lot of it is just human nature, if you can do it without any issues all the time, you get lulled into a false sense of security.
where caught make the
where caught make the punishment so severe (like drink driving) that only the hardcore would do it.
You can never change them
ianrobo wrote:where caught
The potential is already 14 years inside. It’s just that most drivers are really not that reasoned or able to focus much more than on their next kebab!
The Argos stockroom beckons.
The Argos stockroom beckons.
is this any worse than TV
is this any worse than TV presenters who insist on doing pieces to camera whilst driving? *
* they shouldn’t do that IMO, but the precident exists….
Because his phone is in a
Because his phone is in a hands free device, he is technically not “using” his phone, using a streaming app like this would be like being on a hands free call, expect that the texts comes up on a screen, no different to using a GPS device in my eyes and I talk or sing to myself while driving. If I thought I was interesting, I might go and using this Periscope app.
It is not illegal, you are not using your phone with your hands, you can still use both hands to drive. It is just like holding a conversation on the phone
Gkam84 wrote:Because his
How does he start/stop the app without touching his phone? Is it not the case that a DVD monitor for example must not be viewable to the driver of a vehicle? Effectively this guy is streaming a movie, one of his own making, with text messages from others being overlaid for him to read. I’d be staggered if this guy was not committing a offence by using ‘Periscope’ on his phone whilst driving.
Joeinpoole wrote:Gkam84
How does he start/stop the app without touching his phone? Is it not the case that a DVD monitor for example must not be viewable to the driver of a vehicle? Effectively this guy is streaming a movie, one of his own making, with text messages from others being overlaid for him to read. I’d be staggered if this guy was not committing a offence by using ‘Periscope’ on his phone whilst driving.— Gkam84
Whether legal or not, on works time he was in effect using a non works app to do private things, thats sackable in itself. Just the same as browsing the net at work when not allowed to.
I can really see what your
I can really see what your saying here Keith. Problem is with periscope you’re looking at the comments/looking at the camera. FaceTime/Skype or any other ‘visual’ communicating will also be incredibly distracting. Even sat navs have been proven to be the trigger to collisions. While a hands free call may be legal it can for some be very distracting. i tend to not use hands free and ignore the phone when it goes if I’m driving.
It’s something that is a very grey area and I can see the govt then make it an offence to use ‘visual’ hands free. In fact the police could do you now for careless driving if involved in a collision and it turns out you were on periscope or whatever
Yeah, I can see it would be
Yeah, I can see it would be distracting, but no more than looking over to change the radio station or cd.
My phone bluetooth’s to my stereo head unit and I have a mic behind the steering wheel, so if I do get a call, I just speak to the steering wheel and the voice comes through the whole stereo system.
Gkam84 wrote:Yeah, I can see
same with mine but I still turn off my phone ….
As for changing station hand controls on the steering wheel surely ? CD’s ??? come on USB connection to your phone
Gkam84 wrote:Yeah, I can see
Would you fiddle with your radio whilst driving on your driving test?
Kill someone while doing it is 14 years inside but then you wouldn’t admit it would you?
Gkam84 wrote:Yeah, I can see
Research by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) shows that there’s little difference between the levels of distraction for a driver when using hands free technology and when holding a phone in the hand. Just because one is legal and the other isn’t, it doesn’t mean that either is safe. The human brain is like an old generation computer. It only has so much processing power and it can only do so much at once. If you’re in conversation with someone on the phone and also driving, then you’re not able to focus on both. Research by TRL shows that a conversation with a passenger in the car is not the same as one with someone on the phone. When speaking on the phone, the driver will default to the phone conversation so that it takes priority while when speaking to a passenger, the driver will default to driving and prioritise this over the conversation.
My advice is to bin the hands free kits and accept that it isn’t safe. There is plenty of research to say so if you care to look for it and if you say otherwise, to be honest you’re not much better than the bloke in this article who is basically kidding himself that he’s some kind of evolved being who is capable of dual neural processing. Hands free kits exist in a legal grey area at present but are likely to be banned anyway. Sorry to be blunt, but hands free kits are not safe.
Gkam84 wrote:Yeah, I can see
It is strange how some things are illegal and others aren’t, for instance looking at an A to Z is illegal whilst looking at the (smaller) screen of a gps unit apparently isn’t.
It is these distractions that we need to legislate (and enforce) against because joe public can’t drive properly/safely as it is!
My company had just rolled
My company had just rolled out a motor on.mobile off policy.
No using it even if you’re hands free.
If you ring someone and they’re driving then you’re to tell them to call back when out of the car.
It’s an excellent idea – it must be very distracting trying to have a work conversation and driving at the same time. I’m office based and it’s hard enough.
The prize twat should be
The prize twat should be sacked and banned from driving and made to sit a driver safety test before ever getting back on the road, it is clearly visible when his eye is on the road and when he is staring into his phone, beggars f***ing belief!
All that needs to happen is
All that needs to happen is for the Periscope authors to proactively add a trigger for movement or GPS movement and car driver use which automatically exits the program when it detects use in a moving road vehicle or be sued to do so by a victim(s).
urbane wrote:All that needs
But that would severely limit the use of the app for other purposes. I first became aware of Periscope when Rory McIlroy used it from a private jet after winning the Wells Fargo tournament for example. He wasn’t flying the plane;
http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-loop/2015/05/rory-mcilroy-periscope-celebrate-private-jet.html
My van doesn’t have steering
My van doesn’t have steering wheel controls, but I do have a 32gb USB stick with all my music on. My head unit is also a TV, but it has a great feature built in, which I only found out because I hadn’t closed down the TV before loading the Sat Nav. Try and drive with the TV on and all you get is really high pitched screeching above the TV volume, about 20 seconds of that and you have to stop it.
‘I’m a very good driver’ says
‘I’m a very good driver’ says man driving large van around town centre whilst staring at his phone rather than the road – bit like those ‘very good drivers’ who think drink drive laws and speed limits are also only for lesser mortals then them
“The practice has led a US
“The practice has led a US lawyer to warn that footage could be used in court against a motorist as evidence in the event of a collision caused by the driver being distracted”.
I’m sure motorists in this country will be trembling in their boots at the thought of this, given the levels of punishment doled out for motoring offences……… <:P
What an idiot.
What an idiot.
It’s all ok peeps. This
It’s all ok peeps. This professional driver recommends that cyclists pass him on the offside and that passing on the inside could result in being killed to death. In spite of it not being illegal
I recommend that this gentleman learns to drive properly.
don simon wrote:It’s all ok
What he says it bang on though, DON’T try and sneak up the inside of a big lorry, pass on the outside. It is only common sense, if you look at most people who get killed by lorries in towns and cities, they will have gone up the inside to the junction, sat in the drivers blind spot and not given enough room, should the lorry be turning left.
Gkam84 wrote:don simon
Just because he doesn’t follow what is a legal manouvre, and doesn’t respect cyclists, doesn’t make it right. The cyclist has the right to filter on the inside, it’s the driver who isn’t paying attention who is in the wrong. ALWAYS.
.
Just because he doesn’t
.[/quote]
Just because he doesn’t follow what is a legal manouvre, and doesn’t respect cyclists, doesn’t make it right. The cyclist has the right to filter on the inside, it’s the driver who isn’t paying attention who is in the wrong. ALWAYS.[/quote]
‘Doesn’t respect cyclists’ ? What utter nonsense. It’s a massive leap from being pee’d off with cyclists and killing them deliberately as you are implying. It’s that kind of rationale that undermines the cycle lobby and shows that any ‘war’ is being fomented by cyclists.
So you have no responsibility whatsoever for your own safety? You know this manouvre results in cyclist death, but you place your life in your right to do it? Great. You’re dead but in the right. What kind of logic is that? And if you’re a driver, your logic would be just as dangerous behind the wheel too. The percentage of daft illogical cyclists would mirror that of 32 million drivers.
Gkam84 wrote:…DON’T try and
good advice, but what happens when the cycle lane goes up the inside of a big lorry? Like the ones that are put there specifically to get you to an ASL box?
don simon wrote:It’s all ok
Oh right. So the logic is as you enter heaven St Peter says: ‘Come in my son. what you did was perfectly legal so you maybe dead but what you did wasn’t against the law’. It’s not against the law to run across a live firing range either.
i saw a woman in her car the
i saw a woman in her car the other day who had her phone fixed with a contraption on the inside of the steering wheel, and she was texting on the motoway. her field of vision whilst she was doing so, was at the level of the speed dial on her dash board. It is mind boggling, if it even legal to sell phone holders like that.
Sub5orange wrote:i saw a
I imagine it’s something you can get from China on eBay.
Why would it be illegal?
Why would it be illegal? Would you legislate everything?
skull-collector-not-really
if it means some idiot distracted by this does not have the potential to kill, then yes.
Narcissism overides common
Narcissism overides common sense yet again. Reminds me of the bloke who posted a video of himself with his bags of cocaine on Face Book recently and was surprised to be visited sharpish by the Police.
If only the Great train Robbers had had Twitter. They would have been caught when one posted his trip to Millets to buy a balaclava. And we would have been spared Phil Collins starring in a film about them…
Anyone who follows my work
Anyone who follows my work will know that there is no tolerance for any distraction that does not enhance the drive and safety.
Knowing exactly where you’re going, how far before a turn and what lane etc, makes for safer driving so Sat Navs save lives and reduce accidents. But setting the Sat Nav, changing it whilst driving and fiddling with it isn’t. Calming radio and traffic info is fine, fiddling with it isn’t and so on.
Phones and texting, hand held or not, do not mix with driving at all.
Basically, if you wouldn’t do it on your test and expect to fail if you did, is taboo and that includes smoking and unwrapping a chocolate bar. That test was a contract with the community that you signed up to.
So watching any sort of video is a distraction that is not compatible with driving.
I don’t think he should lose his job on first offence but a deduction of pay should be offered to him as an alternative to the sack.
It is clearly a nonsense to increase the phone use fine or introduce one for this. There is already a potential 14 years inside for doing this and if that isn’t deterring people already, I don’t know what sort of fine would.
The problem is that driving is soon treated as old hat after passing the test. How difficult it really is to drive is soon forgotten and becomes as instinctive as breathing, eating and drinking by people, most of whom, are of no great intelligence or aptitude for it either. An onerous responsibility being vested in and being treated casually by the lowest order. What law ever enters their tiny minds until it’s too late?
IIRC filtering is only legal
IIRC filtering is only legal if it is safe. And filtering on the left generally isn’t.
kwi wrote:IIRC filtering is
Who’s to say what safe is? Obviously this guy is saying it isn’t safe as he doesn’t give a shit and obvioulsy he’s right because he’s a professional driver.
I’ve only had one problem when filtering on the left where a back seat passenger opened a door on me. The poor kid got a bollocking from his parents and I gave the driver a bollocking for not looking out for other road users.
Filtering on the inside is perfectly fine if done carefully.
The guy that came barrelling up my inside last week clearly hadn’t seen my left indicator flashing its little heart out. It could have ended badly.
Just because there are twatty drivers out there doesn’t make it right.
As for the ST Peter comment that’s floating around out there…. Get real, eh?
Quote:IIRC filtering is only
If you think that’s true show me the statute.
There is a difference between undertaking (dangerous) and filtering. Filtering is done in queueing traffic, i.e., stationary or very slow moving. One of the biggest risks in queueing traffic is opening car doors, which happens on both sides of the vehicle. I don’t particularly like filtering on the left, but that’s where the cycle lane is, and often the only place where there’s space to do so.
*Why am I getting the emails,
*Why am I getting the emails, but not seeing the posts?
It always amazed me how
It always amazed me how motoring programmes like Top Gear did so may broadcasts with presenters talking to camera.
Quote:He assures his audience
He’s seriously deluded. He will find out how deluded he is when he kills someone.
It’s a really really simple
It’s a really really simple rule that will save your life; don’t filter up the inside of big lorries.
It doesn’t matter if there is a cycle lane or an ASL, don’t do it.
Cyclists can whinge and whine all they like, but it is simple self preservation to treat big blind lorries with caution.
Follow the 11th commandment; Don’t be a dick.
crikey wrote:It’s a really
*spot on*. Yes, the driver should be looking out for you. But if you don’t put yourself in the position to start with, you take him out of the equation. Bimbling up the inside of lorries with your self-righteous mode on isn’t going to help your family to cope when you’re jam.
‘Hmm. This beach is closed because of shark attacks, and there are ‘SHARKS – NO SWIMMING!’ signs everywhere. I’ll still go swimming, because it’s the sea, and nobody owns it – and if I get eaten, I can blame the sharks. Or maybe the signs…’
andyp wrote:
‘Hmm. This beach
I could extend your simile and say the Amity town council encouraged visitors and even put up signs saying “come on in, the water’s lovely”.
There is an article somewhere
There is an article somewhere on the internet saying how shit ASLs actually are and how they promote bad road craft in cyclists, especially ones with a marked filter lane at the kerb side. At traffic lights taking the lane where you happen to be is, IMHO, mostly safer than trying to filter up to that ASL when the lights could well change before you get there.
In HGV vs cyclist incidents
In HGV vs cyclist incidents there is only ever one outcome.
Complain about victim blaming if you need to, but anyone who ‘filters’ on the left of an HGV is putting themselves into harms way for the sake of seconds on a journey; which is exactly the behaviour cyclists moan about when done by drivers.
Just wait behind them; save your life by not being a dick.
crikey wrote:
Complain about
Did you not read the post above yours? It complains that there are cycle filter lanes on the left to lead cyclists into the ASL box. I quite agree, this is a dangerous procedure, but aren’t the Highwaymen who paint these lines and direct naive cyclists this dangerous route much more culpable than the cyclists who are led into folly?
Quote:It’s a really really
That’s really, really strange. I have done, and will continue to filter up the inside, where I think appropriate, in the following way.
I filter up the inside, I stop a little way in front of said HGV (or whatever vehicle), turn around and look at the HGV driver until I’m confident that they have seen me.
All good to go and I’ve never felt threatened yet.
As a general rule, what I
As a general rule, what I said is the one that all cyclists should be aware of and adhere to.
If some people do it, and some people get away with it and some people think it’s OK, then someone will do it, usually in London, and get squished.
I don’t do it and I advise people not to because squished people are not a good thing.
Quote:but aren’t the
It’s up to you not to be a dick.
Stop looking to blame the Highwaymen, however dandy they may appear, and concentrate on not being a dick.
crikey wrote:Quote:but aren’t
I would never go up this route. I would have thought that the way I described it as dangerous and a folly, might give you a clue. It seems that you are the dick, especially because you go calling others this without cause.
Not everyone has ridden a bike for as many years as me, and not everyone is cynical enough to realise that the route the authorities privide and mark for cyclists is in fact dangerous. What sort of arrogant moron are you to condemn other cyclists for the mistake they are encouraged into by the road builders?
I haven’t called anyone a
I haven’t called anyone a dick.
I have suggested that one should aim not to be one.
You have called me an arrogant moron.
I’m winning so far. 😉
crikey wrote:I haven’t called
Don’t you think that telling someone to try not to be a dick is saying that they are one?
Don’t you think that advising people to concentrate on not being a dick is calling them one?
Don’t you think that saying anyone who rides up the inside of an HGV is a dick is calling those people a dick?
I think you need to brush up your writing skills.
You are winning? Do you see this as a competition?
I think that you are being very scornful of cyclists who make the understandable mistake of following the directions of the road authorities. If you cannot see how unpleasant this makes you look, then there is nothing more I can say.
crikey wrote:I haven’t called
Well, you know you’re in a discussion with people who filter up the left of lorries and you’re saying that people who filter up the left of lorries are dicks… Now, maybe you’re not so hot on logic, but I can draw you a map of what you’re saying if you like.
At least have the balls to call people dicks rather than hiding behind your semantic wankery.
If I said don’t be a
If I said don’t be a greengrocer, would you feel that I was actually calling you a greengrocer?
Don’t be a dick, don’t ride up the left side of big lorries.
Hardly controversial advice.
When you are in a hole, stop
When you are in a hole, stop digging.
Incidentally, don’t be a dick
Incidentally, don’t be a dick is sound advice for many different situations.
crikey wrote:Incidentally,
Yes. Follow it.
I am giving people sensible
I am giving people sensible advice.
I am doing it in a way that will stick in peoples memory.
It is advice that will help to keep them safe.
Some people seem to prefer to pick arguments with me.
Don’t be a dick; don’t filter down the left hand side of big lorries.
crikey wrote:I am giving
So if I filter up the left side of a lorry then I am…
Go on, don’t be shy. You’re on the Internet, you can talk as big as you like, I can’t touch you.
No condemnation of the
No condemnation of the highwaymen who put these lanes up the gutter to the ASL box?
They are professionals, they have no excuse.
Surely you have some choice insult for them.
crikey wrote:I am giving
crikey, don’t be an asshat, just accept that it’s an argument you’re not going to win.
Edit: crikey, those stickers started to appear after a spate of accidents. Some of them are quite aggressive in their language and all of them are shifting responsibility from the driver and on to the cyclist. You are perpetuating this and it’s wrong.
Both still playing the man
Both still playing the man rather than the ball?
It’s like running with scissors; I don’t blame the people who make either the scissors or the running shoes.
Don’t be a dick; don’t filter down the left side of big lorries.
(A lot of large vehicles even have stickers on telling you that it is a really bad idea.)
crikey wrote:Don’t be a dick;
Cyclists who filter up the inside of lorries aren’t dicks. Simply naive to believe that the facilities painted on the road for cyclists to use are fit for purpose. You know, a bit like trusting the exit sign in a cinema will take you to the exit?
Quote:You are perpetuating
No, I’m giving you sensible, real world, tried and tested advice that if you are a new cyclist or an experienced one will keep you safer.
I’m being called names because people are a bit grumpy, but the advice is sound; unless anyone will step up and suggest that filtering down the left side of big lorries is a good thing to do.
Don’t be a dick….you know the rest.
Edit:
Which involved people filtering down the left side of big lorries….
crikey wrote:…I’m being
erm…
crikey wrote:…I’m being
erm…
No-one’s calling you
No-one’s calling you names.
Edit:
I hear exactly what you’re saying, but it’s the wrong solution that you’re offering.
If people are being injured and killed because of poor driving, it’s the poor driving that has to be addressed and not the victims to be called dicks.
My favourite sticker is the “If I can’t see you in my mirrors, etc….”, my response is that the mirrors have to be used in the first instance by the driver and even when used wagon drivers will often pull out in front when i’m driving. But hey, if enough of them do it perhaps the Highway code will change to accommodate this dangerous driving practice.
Please yourselves, but my
Please yourselves, but my advice will keep you safer until things improve.
Y’all know what not to be, right?
😉
crikey wrote:Please
You apparently don’t.
Whatever…
Whatever…
crikey wrote:Whatever…
You
You sound like an adolescent.
You remind me of someone I
You remind me of someone I used to know, crikey. :S
But I don’t ride down the
But I don’t ride down the left side of big lorries, which is the whole point…
crikey wrote:But I don’t ride
But you do go around calling strangers on the Internet dicks…
No, I suggest that people
No, I suggest that people make an effort not to be dicks, which is a different thing altogether.
It has been instructive to see that people would rather argue about that than apply themselves to the actual issue which is that riding down the left side of big lorries puts them into danger which is easily avoided by not doing so.
I’m fully aware of the arguments which suggest that we should be safe if everyone was good at driving and that we shouldn’t be blamed in the cases where it goes wrong, but it is a simple way of staying safer.
The next time someone is tempted, they may well think of me and not do it, in which case, job done.
…and yes, I know I’m an arrogant arse but this is an important thing to get across.
crikey wrote:
…and yes, I
You are gaining some self knowledge.
Now, how about condemning the highway departments which do their best to entice cyclists to ride up the gutter to the ASL box?
Oooh you naughty road
Oooh you naughty road painters, you should know better.
crikey wrote:Oooh you naughty
How old are you?
Old enough to keep you
Old enough to keep you entertained, obviously.
crikey wrote:Old enough to
That’s true. I enjoy chatting to my nephews too.
Lovely.
Um, I am married, but
Lovely.
Um, I am married, but I’m a Sagittarius if that helps?
When I think about, I’m being
When I think about, I’m being unfair to the ten year old. He asks intelligent questions and listens to the answers.
I’ve got a good sense of
I’ve got a good sense of humour and all my own teeth.
crikey wrote:I’ve got a good
Can’t tell about the teeth but you’re wrong about the GSOH.
I’m having a fun time, and
I’m having a fun time, and you keep coming back… 😉
You do know that was a
You do know that was a *film*, right?
andyp wrote:You do know that
The clue was “extend your simile”.
Quote:Bimbling up the inside
I’m sure there are still a few people that do this, and it is a little bit silly.
I think cyclists should also ride in the gutter, after all primary position is just asking to be hit.
less of a clue, more of a
less of a clue, more of a total missing of the point.
andyp wrote:less of a clue,
You could not miss my point if you have read this thread. I doubt you have missed it really.
This is why it’s worth
This is why it’s worth reinforcing, this is why it’s worth continuing to argue, this is why I’ve wasted an evening being disparaged;
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/why-are-lorries-responsible-for-so-many-cyclist-deaths-162064
http://www.ecf.com/news/cycling-fatalities-much-higher-risk-of-getting-killed-by-a-lorry-than-a-bus-in-london/
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/article/20130619-campaigning-road-safety-HGVs-and-Cycling–Why-the-two-are-uneasy-bedfellows-0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8989290/Lorries-involved-in-two-thirds-of-cyclist-deaths-in-London.html
It’s really simple; don’t be a dick, don’t filter down the left hand side of big lorries.
Bed now, bike tomorrow :H
You people, especially the
You people, especially the writer, should be ashamed. You don’t know him. You don’t know how respectful he actually is to the rules of the road. You don’t know that he is pulled over regularly for being overly cautious, and yet has an impeccable driving record. You don’t know how many times he has pulled over and risked his own safety to save the lives of others who have been involved in road accidents. You don’t know the deep pasion he holds glut human life. You took one act and hung him for it. This writer chopped up this video, shot on the drivers way home from work (not during), to prove his point. The video was 18 minutes long but he showed only the part that would turn heads. And then, the next day he searched the driver out again to see if he could get more dirt. But did he? No. He got a defeated man sitting at home trying to understand why someone would do this to him…and not only did Simon watch it live but he also watched it again. Why? What did you hope to accomplish with that?
Do you know the driver nearly died fighting for your rights in iraq? Nope, you don’t care. Do you know he has 3 girls to take care of? Do you realize he is getting married in two months? But now because of this, he may not be able to afford to get to the US in time, where his bride is waiting.
I gaurentee not a single one of you pricks can say you are completely innocent when it comes to following the rules (any rules) 100% of the time. Hypocrites. I also wager that none of you has as big of a heart as the diver does, and as much respect for human rights. As cyclists, He defends you. He even did do in this broadcast. I know because I’ve expressed my irritation with you because more often then not, when I’m driving and out comes a cyclist i risk my own safety to ensure the safety of the cyclist who thinks he or she is above the rules of the road is not in jepordy. Because here in Murrica, pedestrians have the right of way and cyclist often take advantage of that. But do you know what’s not right? This. This is not journalism. I know because i am a journalist – newspaper reporter to be precise – and this kind of reporting is unethical. You twisted the facts to best fit your agenda and may have cost someone his job. But i promise you, his actions would not have cost anyone their life because this man is cautious and quite frankly, there is no one i know who drives safer. Can you say the same for yourself?
TheRomMistress wrote:You
However wonderful you believe this man to be, his video encourages people to believe that one can drive and do other things. Maybe he can because he’s superhuman. The people he encourages to copy him won’t be.
No, i don’t care that he fought in Iraq. Nothing against him, but it wasnt for ‘my rights ‘. It was an illegal war fought for oil.
I am indeed a completely safe driver. The only sort, because i don’t drive. No, i don’t follow the rules all the time, but nor do i chuck a few tonnes of metal around while doing domething distracting.
Never called him
Never called him superhuman…amd as far as fightimg for yoir riggts, that’s what they all thought they were doing when they joined. Its the thought that counts….
And you dont drive so you don’t know either. I wonder what you would do after 14 hours of driving?
TheRomMistress wrote:Never
Not be driving. 14 hours is too long. And by the way, i have a licence, i used to drive, so i do understand the dangers of tiredness and distraction I stopped because i didn’t believe it was compatible with safety or care for the planet.
Anyone who didn’t understand that it was an illegal war when it started wasn’t thinking. Fine, he did the job he was paid for, quite possibly heroically. I can respect that, but don’t bother asking me to respect the motivation for that war.
Please delete
Please delete
I agree that distraction on
I agree that distraction on the road is an issue. If it werent, there wouldnt be huge statistics on fatal accidents because of distraction. I am arguing that the diver was not doing anything illigal and did not warent such a personal attack. You want to bring light yo an issue? Do it with statistical reporting. Do it with facts that are not bogged down with emotion.
Quote: I wonder what you
https://www.gov.uk/drivers-hours/driving-under-both-eu-and-gb-domestic-rules
The govt recognises that one should not drive more than 10 hours in any given day. Anything more is not something to boast about.
#Dangerous #Irresponsible
The 14 hours spans his day –
The 14 hours spans his day – including loading, driving to and from work, breaks, etc. Not all drive time thank goodness.
He seems like a nice,
He seems like a nice, intelligent chap. There’s no need to sack him, just a quiet word and he’ll learn from the experience and be a better driver because of it.
Ah, that’s a shame, the
Ah, that’s a shame, the videos been taken down. 😕