Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it's just one step at a time Loz - although I don't really think the two things are on a par in terms of diverting your attention.


I've seen people in cars completely blind to the outside world because they're remonstrating with someone on the phone. I've never seen a cigarette have the same effect.


Frankly, despite being a smoker, I have no idea how people can smoke in cars at all!!

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How it illegal to use a mobile phone while

> driving, but not illegal to have a burning stick

> of tobacco in your hand??



OBVIOUSLY the in use smoking hand is already taken up. So it makes sense NOT to occupy the spare hand with a communication device.


The law makers are pretty clever sometimes.


NETTE(td)

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I've seen people in cars completely blind to the

> outside world because they're remonstrating with

> someone on the phone. I've never seen a cigarette

> have the same effect.


Drop both in your lap and see which one diverts your attention more!

Tarot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How comes its against the law not to belt up in a

> car,yet hundreds of people every day are

> travelling standing up in

> cramped trains and buses ?.

> Double standards where money,s involved.


I'd get this one off to Viz pronto if I was you T.


Just have the final line read 'It's one law for the likes of them Stagecoach gadgies and another for the rest of us'.


I reckon you'll get a pencil for that.

We all have flaws Strafer.I gather you have not been thrown while standing on a crowded bus driven by a physcho driver,

or stood next to a unwashed oink on a train all squashed together.

Of course its logical to wear a safety belt in a car,and you could be fined without one,but the concern for safety does

not apply to commuters.

Frankito bad boy ,Ill see you in the playground by the naughty room.

Tarot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How comes its against the law not to belt up in a

> car,yet hundreds of people every day are

> travelling standing up in

> cramped trains and buses ?.

> Double standards where money,s involved.


Its not 'hundreds of people' its millions and therefore would be impractical and impossible to police.

Tarot. I've been in all of those situations. Sorry. Still don't see your logic


Double decker trains are great but how typical of you to adopt the martyr "we are not worthy" position and ignore the fact that this country has a different topology. Have you never noticed just how many low bridges there are on the rail networks?

Having a Cigarette whilst driving is dangerous.


You first need to locate your ciggies..


Then a method to light it.


Matches.... Lighter.... ??


Car lighter ... press .. wait to warm up... retract from holder... light cigarette... replace in holder..


Requires manoverours similar to tuning radio.. as you have to take your eyes off the road...


A work mate of mine a few years back drove into the back of another car whilst selecting a sweet

from the passengers seat. Just a second of distraction...


Fox

I think StraferJack is right, the number of low bridges and tunnels would rule out double decker trains. Actually I have been on a couple of double decker trains in Europe - there were no seatbelts, and some passengers still had to stand.


As others have said, there are relatively few train accidents compared with car crashes, it is an inherently safer way to travel. And buses usually travel at low speed (but coaches have to have seatbelts fitted).

Are we really indulging this?


How come we are forced to sit through tedious safety demonstrations on flights, but I notice birds taking off all the time without so much as a health and safety certificate...I mean it's one rule for them and another for us....it's about oil I tell ya!!

Just to go OT slightly, this morning on the 12 bus this gadgey and a lollygagger were talking.

The gadgey told the lollygagger that the bendy 12s were on their out by Xmas and the 436s would folllow in quick smart order.


His source was an unnamed 'friend' at Camberwell garage, who could well be the worst sort of yegg for all I know.


Can anyone verify whether this is the case or should I just stop listening to nogoodniks on the buses?

I bet your kids dont get sweets off of you Mockney, low tolerance level.

Strafer I must admit I never thought of bridges being short I dont travel by train a lot,but think of the work created if they could start building bigger ones.

I hate commuting on trains, never works out well, and I,m mainly a miserable martyr with a touch of the Jack Dees.

Frankito I havent got outside yet Hughnots banned the sweets, and Mockneys put me in a padded room:X

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I read elsewhere that somebody was stabbed,  but I have no idea how reliable that information is.
    • Hello Did anyone see an accident about 15 minutes ago at the junction of Goodrich and Friern Road. A black car driven by a lady ran in to the side of my car as I was coming up Friern Road- instead of pulling over she drove off without providing her insurance information. If anyone happened to see this or has her license plate details please pm me. Thanks 
    • Hi everyone,  I have a few slots for next few days, if anyone need  a tidy or one off, please feel free to call, text, or WhatsApp as well. Thanks very much Fernando Pinto 
    • On what basis do you object to the economy spend numbers in the report and describe it as "extremely unlikely"? Is that objection based on data or is it vibes-based? Where does this estimate of "50-100 vehicles" come from? The objectors:supporters ratio doesn't speak volumes. Planning applications of this sort always receive objections from various curtain twitches and NIMBYs. It doesn't mean those objections are well-founded or sensible. The planning officers and councillors need to consider the issue objectively, not just count the letters. It's not a public vote. Saying the building is "out of character" is meaningless out of context. It's an unusual building on an unusual infill site. It's not supposed to be a model for future development across Dulwich as a whole.  We are in the middle of a housing crisis. London desperately needs more housing units. This is an opportunity to get a whole bunch of them on a small, unloved industrial site on top of a transit hub. Not building it because people like the Dulwich Society complains it's "visible" is crazy.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...