# Arla Foods HGV driver illegally on the phone and in a box junction



## scouserinlondon (20 Apr 2010)

Check this guy out. 44tonne Arla Foods HGV

He's on Balham high road during Friday evening rush hour. Heading South at the junction with Bedford hill.

The lights are on red green man for peds. He's in the box junction on his blower.

Emailed Arla, no response yet.

What makes me cross is there are clearly signposted major roadworks ahead, which from his height he would have been aware of. Yet still he's on this blower.


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Apr 2010)

So bloody stupid.


----------



## Simba (20 Apr 2010)

There needs to be tougher sanctions for driving whiles on your mobile and it needs to be policed better.


----------



## Vikeonabike (20 Apr 2010)

Fluffy said:


> There needs to be tougher sanctions for driving whiles on your mobile and it needs to be policed better.


TBH I wouldn't issue a ticket to any HGV or Bus driver caught on their mobile...It would be straight to court....I certainly think they would be very likely to lose their license. Most companies have an instant dismissal policy for drivers using mobile whilst driving


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Apr 2010)

Vikeonabike said:


> TBH I wouldn't issue a ticket to any HGV or Bus driver caught on their mobile...It would be straight to court....I certainly think they would be very likely to lose their license.* Most companies have an instant dismissal policy for drivers using mobile whilst driving*



Somehow I doubt this.

Esp with Van man also.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (20 Apr 2010)

That's a scary photo and screams the following scenario to me

1) Pedestrian crosses on green man under the line of sight of already distracted driver...
2) Traffic begins to move past the junction, truck being already "sort of" through the lights follows suit...
3) Do I need to describe graphically what happens next?....


----------



## downfader (20 Apr 2010)

Can you email the photo and the reg over to road safe as well? The company might take it more seriously that way just as with the van driver incident (mentioned on thisislondon). I would also consider filling out a stop smidsy form so they can log it as part of their campaign.


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Apr 2010)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> That's a scary photo and screams the following scenario to me
> 
> 1) Pedestrian crosses on green man under the line of sight of already distracted driver...
> 2) Traffic begins to move past the junction, truck being already "sort of" through the lights follows suit...
> 3) Do I need to describe graphically what happens next?....



Yeah I noticed ped there.Lorry driver probably didn't.


----------



## downfader (20 Apr 2010)

BTW if you've emailed the company it can take up to 48 hours for them to respond, somtimes longer.


----------



## Armegatron (20 Apr 2010)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> That's a scary photo and screams the following scenario to me
> 
> 1) Pedestrian crosses on green man under the line of sight of already distracted driver...
> 2) Traffic begins to move past the junction, truck being already "sort of" through the lights follows suit...
> 3) Do I need to describe graphically what happens next?....



This was my first thought too. Not a nice situation that would come out of this


----------



## gaz (20 Apr 2010)

scouserinlondon said:


> What makes me cross is there are clearly signposted major roadworks ahead, which from his height he would have been aware of. Yet still he's on this blower.


And they are 3 way lights, he is going to be sitting there for some time!!


----------



## hackbike 666 (20 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> What's the law again on using a mobile phone? And when you are allowed to call?



You must be parked and have the engine switched off?

Bit patchy with the when allowed to call but at a guess during an emergency?


----------



## marinyork (20 Apr 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> You must be parked and have the engine switched off?
> 
> Bit patchy with the when allowed to call but at a guess during an emergency?


SI 2003 No. 2695

Yes, things do allow for emergencies but since one reports people for breaching things people tend to come back with "yeah but it was an emergency" so the SI amusingly knows this and refers to a 'genuine emergency' .


----------



## Alan Whicker (20 Apr 2010)

Isn't this evidence of a crime in progress? You should tell the police IMHO.


----------



## Alan Whicker (20 Apr 2010)

I've just reported two drivers on roadsafe for using phones - a silver BMW and a black Audi. I also looked up their reg numbers on mycarcheck. The BMW doesn't exist and the Audi should in fact be a red Toyota Landcruiser


----------



## marinyork (20 Apr 2010)

The law assumes someone is 'on the phone' and makes a reasonable definition. It has to otherwise you get into inconsistency and a completely unworkable system.


----------



## scouserinlondon (20 Apr 2010)

downfader said:


> Can you email the photo and the reg over to road safe as well? The company might take it more seriously that way just as with the van driver incident (mentioned on thisislondon). I would also consider filling out a stop smidsy form so they can log it as part of their campaign.



I will. Sadly didn't get the HGV reg.


----------



## marinyork (20 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> How did Jimmy Carr get off then?



How did Lord Ahmed get off? Very generous interpretations.


----------



## marinyork (20 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> Which is what I am saying with respect to the afore mentioned trucker.



They might have been doing something else. The problem is there's no workable system if you go down that path. You end up with ludicrous things of people saying that they sent the text five seconds ago and so on. The law already allows the trucker several alternatives :-

(a) hands free kit secured to the dash
( switch it off
(c) pull over, preferably somewhere totally safe, but even semi safe is an improvement
(d) get someone else to take it


----------



## marinyork (20 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> So if the law says above then how did Jimmy Carr get off?



Like I said a very generous interpretation. I don't particularly disbelieve him that he was using it to record jokes, but I still believe he should have been given points. If he wants to do that he should buy a separate dictaphone and can then argue with the police about that when he's stopped. People know very well there are all kinds of things you could use it for other than calls/texts/internet/communication, I switch mine off, people are entitled to do any of the legal options they believe are right.


----------



## magnatom (20 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> How I can have a phone to my ear and still drive with no complications at all.




Ah, so you are this new breed of superhumans that I have heard about....


----------



## magnatom (20 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> I suggest you read my post again and then apply the whole 'what is written and what is interpreted.....'




Oh I realise that you have not suggested that you were talking on the phone. As always you omit things to try and lure people into incorrect responses. A very common tactic of yours Lee. 

However, I stand by my assertion that you must be superhuman to be able to hold a phone against your ear and drive with no complications at all. 

So you can drive with no deficit, whatsoever, with one hand on the controls? No deficit?


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (20 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> How did Jimmy Carr get off then?



Probably on the "special personality dispensation" the police use

Would you get off with pushing through motorway roadworks down the hard shoulder?
Did Alex Ferguson?
Case in point


----------



## jay clock (20 Apr 2010)

If I was the driver I could claim that a) it is not a phone it is a hairbrush (hard to argue against based on that photo) and  I was not parked on the yellow box, I was moving and a still photo at a high shutter speed can easily make it look like I am stationary.

Having worked in HR I am not sure it would easy to make a summary dismissal based upon that photo, and particularly if the police had been informed but had not prosecuted.

He would get a severe bollocking though!


----------



## magnatom (20 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> I doubt it and yes with an automatic. (although with a manual box your knees do come in handy)


Right you are then. I may be asking you to pop up to Glasgow sometime as I'm considering a research project on these fabled superhumans....


----------



## magnatom (20 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> Glasgow??? Er no thanks


Scared, ya big Jessie?


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (20 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> Yeah, then you have Caprice, George Micheal - they got off as well didn't they?



Quite different cases as my post was in reference to driving offences in general. Driving is seen as a right not a priviledge and driving offences are seen as petty transgressions rather than actual offences in the public perception. We all know this, driving a ton of steel on rubber recklessly around a town centre is treated far less severely as swinging a 4lb lump hammer around town. Why? Because more people drive cars than need to carry lump hammers. Either is equally capable of killing.

Drink Driving is thankfully the one bad driving habit that has a stigma attached to it

Homosexuality is also frowned upon by many, and coupled with cottaging, seen as distateful and immorral in the public eye, thus no quarter was given to GM in regards to celebrity status

Phone use IS going in the direction of drink-driving as a percieved anti-social activity but it will take much much longer to finally get there


----------



## downfader (20 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> So if the law says above then how did Jimmy Carr get off?



Carr got off because his (very expensive and very good) lawyer showed phone records denoting when Carr had last used the phone for communication purposes. Since the dictaphone function doesnt access the phone line it was dropped on a technicality.


----------



## classic33 (20 Apr 2010)

jay clock said:


> If I was the driver I could claim that a) it is not a phone it is a hairbrush (hard to argue against based on that photo) and  I was not parked on the yellow box, I was moving and a still photo at a high shutter speed can easily make it look like I am stationary.
> 
> Having worked in HR I am not sure it would easy to make a summary dismissal based upon that photo, and particularly if the police had been informed but had not prosecuted.
> 
> He would get a severe bollocking though!



A) Why a hairbrush. Green cap is visible on the drivers head & very little hair.
Also Right arm is resting on steering wheel, which means that Left arm is 
being used across the body.
 Vehicle was moving, shutter speed at that light level Wouldn't have been
that high, unless high speed film was being used. Also requires "panning"
which would smack of a staged shot.


----------



## Arch (20 Apr 2010)

jay clock said:


> If I was the driver I could claim that a) it is not a phone it is a hairbrush (hard to argue against based on that photo) and  I was not parked on the yellow box, I was moving and a still photo at a high shutter speed can easily make it look like I am stationary.
> 
> Having worked in HR I am not sure it would easy to make a summary dismissal based upon that photo, and particularly if the police had been informed but had not prosecuted.
> 
> He would get a severe bollocking though!



I would imagine that even brushing your hair while driving could be deemed an offence, since people get done for eating apples and so on.


----------



## shippers (20 Apr 2010)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Phone use IS going in the direction of drink-driving as a percieved anti-social activity but it will take much much longer to finally get there



I disagree- I think drink driving too ages to be seen as as a morally repugnant thing to do; decades in fact. Driving with a mobile phone has only been a phenonomen since the widespread ownership of mobile phones- 10 years or so, and it's already on the way out. 
Have you also noticed that people are driving slower? 5 years ago, if you drove at 70 on the motorway everything would shoot past you- I'm not saying that nothing passes you now, but you're not the berk holding the traffic up anymore!


----------



## downfader (20 Apr 2010)

shippers said:


> Have you also noticed that people are driving slower? 5 years ago, if you drove at 70 on the motorway everything would shoot past you- I'm not saying that nothing passes you now, but you're not the berk holding the traffic up anymore!



Not around here they dont. I've measured out the distance and timed drivers on certain roads and they're definately going above the limit by an average of 6mph on the slower roads, and I've seen them shoot past when I'm a passenger in the family car - looking at the speedo and seeing it say 70-75 I'm guessing a good proportion of other drivers are doing 80-95 down here in Hampshire.

"Rush hour" is a different story entirely obviously.


----------



## summerdays (20 Apr 2010)

Did you see the traffic cop program tonight ... and what one driver did after being seen on his mobile phone!!! 

I thought it was good that it was incorperated into a program about people committing crimes in cars.


----------



## Vikeonabike (21 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> No I didn't - what happened?



Driver decided he didn't want his 3 points rammed the police car several times before reversing into it so hard he drove onto the roof....Cop was still in the car at the time....Driver got 6 years.
Traffic cops...


----------



## downfader (21 Apr 2010)

Vikeonabike said:


> Driver decided he didn't want his 3 points rammed the police car several times before reversing into it so hard he drove onto the roof....Cop was still in the car at the time....Driver got 6 years.
> Traffic cops...



As the kids say "Epic". Serves the w***er right.


----------



## scouserinlondon (21 Apr 2010)

Update. Had a positive email from the fleet manager at Arla's haulage contractor. I've emailed them all the details and they will investigate.


----------



## Vikeonabike (21 Apr 2010)

Good to hear that SiL


----------



## Rhythm Thief (21 Apr 2010)

magnatom said:


> So you can drive with no deficit, whatsoever, with one hand on the controls? No deficit?



Very easily indeed, in one of the modern breed of automatic lorries. There's very little to do apart from move the (power assisted) steering wheel about and look in the mirrors. You don't need two hands for that.


----------



## downfader (21 Apr 2010)

I think the main issue here is that mobile phone usage is distracting and to such a level that it compares to driving under the influence. I couldnt care less how equiped a vehicle is, its the driver that matters.


----------



## downfader (21 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> I'm just asking you to define evasive action.



 And sometimes you wonder why some on here called you a troll.  Master of evasion!  Please god, put that in your "location" settings


----------



## classic33 (21 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> Most evasive action is done by using the brakes. You are high up in the cab as well so can read the road a lot more to mitigate any 'evasive action' that you may have to take.



Well, being "high up in a cab" should have allowed him ample time to notice the road markings. (What's the law say about those diagonal yellow lines painted onto the road surface that he's parked on?) 

He seems to have missed them until the last moment. Possible that "evasive action" would have to be taken. By others as well as himself.


----------



## marinyork (21 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> Can you prove from the photo that he was stationary and not moving? Moving=Not breaking the law.



They wouldn't need to, they'd just need to demonstrate that there wasn't a clear exit.

As a larger vehicle I think there needs to be a bit of give and take on yellow boxes, that is after all one reason why they are there, but the phone use is inexcusable.


----------



## jay clock (21 Apr 2010)

> A ticket can only be issued if the vehicle is stationary.


rubbish. I suppose you are right in that discussing the transgression with a driver in a moving vehicle will be tough, but the offence is entering the box when the exit is not clear. So you could easily be edging forwards behind another roaduser, never stopping but failing to wait until you had a space to drive into beyond the box. Unless turning right of course!


----------



## ComedyPilot (21 Apr 2010)

My brother (the idiot) was found using a mobile whilst driving a lorry, and got a 2 week ban.

He took responsibility for it and served his time (and the loss of earnings). Maybe a short ban might work for all vehicles?


----------



## ComedyPilot (21 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> 2 weeks? Was this is a conviction? Because I would have thought that under the insurance policy of the company he works for he would not be allowed to drive.



It was ministry imposed?

I don't know, he did say, but I have more interesting things in life to concentrate on - like bikes, beer, Time Trialling, women, sex, bikes, touring, races, tyres, bikes women, sex and gardening.


----------



## Arch (21 Apr 2010)

summerdays said:


> Did you see the traffic cop program tonight ... and what one driver did after being seen on his mobile phone!!!
> 
> I thought it was good that it was incorperated into a program about people committing crimes in cars.



I noticed though that the guy they filmed being pulled up (this isn't the same guy as the driver who rammed the cop car) was on his second pull for this offence in a month. Obviously not learning anything.

And, off topic, but those Driscoll brothers, jeez, they were scary drunk!


----------



## hackbike 666 (21 Apr 2010)

So you are saying it is ok to use a mobile while driving an artic?


----------



## Debian (21 Apr 2010)

User3143 is a disingenuous, evasive troll. His / her aim in life is to wind up as many people as possible.

(S)he, and others of his / her ilk are best ignored completely, don't respond at all, in any way to any comment (s)he makes.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Apr 2010)

Debian said:


> User3143 is a disingenuous, evasive troll. His / her aim in life is to wind up as many people as possible.
> 
> (S)he, and others of his / her ilk are best ignored completely, don't respond at all, in any way to any comment (s)he makes.




Actually, whilst you might not like Lee's posting style, he is a human being, and quite a nice chap who rides rather well. Perhaps there's no need to be quite so nasty?

I can see where he's going with these comments, and there's no need for the angry and defensive responses.


----------



## hackbike 666 (21 Apr 2010)

Trouble is too many people feel the same out there...that is why we have an attitude that it's ok to use a mobile while driving even though they are 5h1t at it.

Then when the inevitable happens nobody takes any responsibility because it isn't their fault poor dears.

I just wonder about that tit who mildy left hooked me/cut me up today was on a mobile or faffing about or whether he couldn't give a toss anyway.


----------



## Jezston (22 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> No I'm not, remember who the more experienced driver here is as well please in respect of driving HGV's



EVERYONE

Remember, Lee is the more experienced driver here - in fact he is a VERY GOOD DRIVER - well above average in fact, and while most other drivers aren't good enough to drive safely and use a mobile / drink coffee / read map / paint nails whilst driving, Lee is a VERY GOOD DRIVER as is perfectly capable of doing these things.

You know, like all those other VERY GOOD DRIVERS who have killed people on the roads who came out of nowhere.


----------



## magnatom (22 Apr 2010)

Jezston said:


> EVERYONE
> 
> Remember, Lee is the more experienced driver here - in fact he is a VERY GOOD DRIVER - well above average in fact, and while most other drivers aren't good enough to drive safely and use a mobile / drink coffee / read map / paint nails whilst driving, Lee is a VERY GOOD DRIVER as is perfectly capable of doing these things.
> 
> You know, like all those other VERY GOOD DRIVERS who have killed people on the roads who came out of nowhere.


+1


----------



## gouldina (22 Apr 2010)

Jezston said:


> EVERYONE
> 
> Remember, Lee is the more experienced driver here - in fact he is a VERY GOOD DRIVER - well above average in fact, and while most other drivers aren't good enough to drive safely and use a mobile / drink coffee / read map / paint nails whilst driving, Lee is a VERY GOOD DRIVER as is perfectly capable of doing these things.
> 
> You know, like all those other VERY GOOD DRIVERS who have killed people on the roads who came out of nowhere.



Yeah but how good is he really? Can he juggle whilst driving for example? Or do a cryptic crossword. Those would be the marks to me of a truly excellent driver.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Apr 2010)

Having ridden with him, I'd say he's a better cyclist than average. No answer on the nasty posts towards Lee? Is it then OK for me to post at you like that, or would it be better if we all played a little bit more nicely?


----------



## magnatom (22 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Having ridden with him, I'd say he's a better cyclist than average. No answer on the nasty posts towards Lee? Is it then OK for me to post at you like that, or would it be better if we all played a little bit more nicely?




To be fair BM, Lee might be a good cyclist, he may be an amazing driver, he may even be able to drive using only his chin, but he does troll. There have been a number of occasions in the past where he has trolled on my threads. So I don't think someone suggesting Lee is a troll is nasty.

Sure he sometimes has something worth saying, but you have to filter out the flack. That is all in my opinion of course.


----------



## gouldina (22 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Having ridden with him, I'd say he's a better cyclist than average. No answer on the nasty posts towards Lee? Is it then OK for me to post at you like that, or would it be better if we all played a little bit more nicely?



I don't see what being a good cyclist has to do with it. The question is about whether it's safe to drive while on a mobile and he thinks it is because he's an experienced driver. Personally I think that's a ridiculous standpoint and doesn't stack up well against all the research I've seen reported.


----------



## scouserinlondon (22 Apr 2010)

In this situation it's clear to me that the driver on his mobile wasn't reading the road ahead. If he was he'd have never entered the box junction in the first place as the road ahead was clearly rammed with stationary traffic.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Apr 2010)

You are misreading him, IMO.

And someone else's slightly less than good posting behaviour is an excellent excuse to be nasty, yes? Not that I'm perfect, but Lee has some valuable input.


----------



## summerdays (22 Apr 2010)

Surely the point is that we all think that we are good drivers/cyclists/etc, you know those surveys where people rate themselves and the vast majority rate themselves as above average (defying the laws of maths). Laws are made for everyone rather than for us to decide to make that decision as to whether we are above that law. 

Some drivers are definitely unable to drive and phone judging from the statistics and deaths caused by it.


----------



## magnatom (22 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> You are misreading him, IMO.
> 
> And someone else's slightly less than good posting behaviour is an excellent excuse to be nasty, yes? Not that I'm perfect, but Lee has some valuable input.




BM, I honestly can see anywhere where anyone has been nasty to Lee. Certainly not in any way that Lee wouldn't be to others. 

I'm a live and let live kinda guy and if I feel Lee is trolling I tend to exit the discussion. However, I can understand why he winds others up.

As you say, I'm sure he is a great guy in real life, and I am sure I'd enjoy a pint with him. However, I and others have on a number of occasions suggested to Lee that if he wants to make a point, it doesn't need to be done in a 'trolling' manner. He hasn't heeded that (his prerogative of course) but he should then understand why he annoys other posters.

IMO of course.


----------



## Riding in Circles (22 Apr 2010)

magnatom said:


> BM, I honestly can see anywhere where anyone has been nasty to Lee. Certainly not in any way that Lee wouldn't be to others.
> 
> I'm a live and let live kinda guy and if I feel Lee is trolling I tend to exit the discussion. However, I can understand why he winds others up.
> 
> ...



I've met him and he is an idiot, can't even look after his own wallet without the help of strangers.


----------



## magnatom (22 Apr 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> I've met him and he is an idiot, can't even look after his own wallet without the help of strangers.




At least you're not calling him a retar.....


----------



## Riding in Circles (22 Apr 2010)

magnatom said:


> At least you're not calling him a retar.....



I find that offensive, I know someone who is a retar.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (22 Apr 2010)

Regardless of whether the phone is being used for talking into, or that 2 hands are on the wheel... tilting the head to cradle the phone between the ear and the shoulder *will* have an impact on driving. It may be just the concentration wandering as you realise that the position is uncomfortable... but it's still a distraction.


----------



## Jezston (22 Apr 2010)

Lee:
Perhaps I wouldn't have missed your point if you hadn't deliberately gone out of your way to conceal it. And that the point you were making was meaningless and asinine.
Where I come from we call that trolling.

I hope the attention you received as a result has satiated your cravings and we can all get back to talking about stuff without someone jumping up and down and drawing cocks on our hands.


----------



## Origamist (22 Apr 2010)

scouserinlondon said:


> In this situation it's clear to me that the driver on his mobile wasn't reading the road ahead. If he was he'd have never entered the box junction in the first place as the road ahead was clearly rammed with stationary traffic.



Indeed. I wonder if he was on the phone to his company?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (22 Apr 2010)

Origamist said:


> Indeed. I wonder if he was on the phone to his company?



Wouldn't surprise me. It also wouldn't surprise me if it was them who'd phoned him, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they'd failed to provide him with a hands free kit while still expecting him to answer the phone whenever they phoned to ask "where are you now?" every five minutes.


----------



## stowie (22 Apr 2010)

I think you are all jumping to conclusions and possibly unfairly blaming the poor lorry driver.

The mobile phone - as Lee so sensibly points out, he may not be using it at all, but just holding it to his ear. Why? Well who knows, maybe he wants to warm up his right ear, or maybe he wants to show off his new phone to the passing pedestrians.

The stopping in a box junction - well clearly we don't know what led up to him sitting over the yellow hatchings. OK, he may have just stopped on them, but surely he may have been innocently sitting at the junction when some workman happened to paint the yellow hatching on the road under his HGV? I think you must agree that he could be completely innocent of any highway code infraction in that case.

Blocking the pedestrian crossing - clearly this road will be very busy at rush hour. The lorry driver is blocking the pedestrian crossing so they cannot use it and be exposed to the hazards of filtering cycles and bikes. He is actually doing the pedestrians a service, but probably receiving very little thanks for his trouble.

I hope that you are all now a little more aware that the lorry driver is almost certainly completely innocent of any driving infractions, and may actually be helping road safety. And you are all treating him as if he is a idiot flouting the law by using a mobile phone and showing no regard for other road users. Shame on you all.


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 Apr 2010)

I have two incidents on camera today of one driver talking into his phone and being totally unaware I was behind him and the other texting with erratic braking.


----------



## stowie (22 Apr 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Wouldn't surprise me. It also wouldn't surprise me if it was them who'd phoned him, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they'd failed to provide him with a hands free kit while still expecting him to answer the phone whenever they phoned to ask "where are you now?" every five minutes.



A bluetooth kit costs £20 from tesco. Even a fairly complex one costs less than £50. Surely the lorry driver could just get one themselves? If it was an earpiece, they could also use it in their own vehicle and remain within the law at all times.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (22 Apr 2010)

stowie said:


> A bluetooth kit costs £20 from tesco. Even a fairly complex one costs less than £50. Surely the lorry driver could just get one themselves? If it was an earpiece, they could also use it in their own vehicle and remain within the law at all times.




My attitude was always "why should I spend my money?" If the company wants to communicate with me while I'm driving, they can buy the thing. Admittedly, I wouldn't normally answer the phone, but it's hard to resist it all the time, especially when they keep ringing.


----------



## stowie (22 Apr 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> My attitude was always "why should I spend my money?" If the company wants to communicate with me while I'm driving, they can buy the thing. Admittedly, I wouldn't normally answer the phone, but it's hard to resist it all the time, especially when they keep ringing.



Would the company, or you, pick up the 3 points and £60 fine (or worse) if caught using a mobile? I just think that the solution to holding a mobile in a vehicle is so cheap and simple that there is no excuse for anyone caught using a handheld mobile.

Besides, these things aren't fixed to a particular vehicle, you can move the kit easily to another lorry or your car - they are always useful.

The issue is that people are too lazy to bother getting a kit, and the detection rate for this crime is so low, everyone knows you can pretty much get away with it.


----------



## scouserinlondon (22 Apr 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> My attitude was always "why should I spend my money?" If the company wants to communicate with me while I'm driving, they can buy the thing. Admittedly, I wouldn't normally answer the phone, but it's hard to resist it all the time, especially when they keep ringing.



I agree with you on this mate. If the transport office want to hassle you all day they should provide good kit to hassle you on.


----------



## Ashtrayhead (22 Apr 2010)

User3143 said:


> You



Who are you calling a you, you?


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 Apr 2010)

Im my job I am told to turn the phone off when I enter the cab which I do which rids the cab of a distraction.They are strict on this rule which is a good thing.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Apr 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> Im my job I am told to turn the phone off when I enter the cab which I do which rids the cab of a distraction.They are strict on this rule which is a good thing.



LOL! Just slightly more serious than in a big lorry.


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> LOL! Just slightly more serious than in a big lorry.



I would still appreciate it if vehicle users did the same...I had two today between London Bridge and Waterloo....one using his mobile and the other texting.It's serious to me to avoid being taken out by one of these morons.

Unfortunately I don't have the film as my sd card mysteriously disappeared from my MUVI.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (23 Apr 2010)

stowie said:


> Would the company, or you, pick up the 3 points and £60 fine (or worse) if caught using a mobile? I just think that the solution to holding a mobile in a vehicle is so cheap and simple that there is no excuse for anyone caught using a handheld mobile.
> 
> Besides, these things aren't fixed to a particular vehicle, you can move the kit easily to another lorry or your car - they are always useful.
> 
> The issue is that people are too lazy to bother getting a kit, and the detection rate for this crime is so low, everyone knows you can pretty much get away with it.



You're slightly missing the point of what I was saying. If the company don't provide any means of talking hands free, I tell them at the start of the shift that I won't answer the phone unless I'm parked somewhere safe. And I won't. I can't be doing with Bluetooth headsets, and twenty quid may not be much to you, but I'd sooner have twenty quid than a Bluetooth headset.


----------



## benborp (23 Apr 2010)

In regard to companies taking the behaviour of their drivers seriously I had a rather unpleasant experience recently. The haulage company (arranged by a foreign co-producer through a broker for transport of stage, set, costume and props between UK and european venues of a theatrical tour) were not particulary helpful to start with and were demanding tight turnarounds. I arranged with a venue for the trailer and unit to stay on site so that the driver could rest after we had finished our get out.
One complication was that the driver had had to arrive a couple of hours before we needed him due to other loading docks being in use; this is where the trouble started: he spent his time in the pub. By the time we were loading he was incapable.
After we were done, he closed the wagon despite still being falling over drunk and I went to sign off the crew. Despite me arranging for the driver to stay overnight I came out of the venue to find an empty dock. I hadn't taken the registration number.

The following day the company's response was that the driver had been drinking, but that it was ok as it was only a couple.

We've made alternate arrangements for the rest of the UK.


----------



## Riding in Circles (23 Apr 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> I would still appreciate it if vehicle users did the same...I had two today between London Bridge and Waterloo....one using his mobile and the other texting.It's serious to me to avoid being taken out by one of these morons.
> 
> Unfortunately I don't have the film as my sd card mysteriously disappeared from my MUVI.



This could be a conspiracy, the SD card for my POV disappeared yesterday.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (23 Apr 2010)

benborp said:


> In regard to companies taking the behaviour of their drivers seriously I had a rather unpleasant experience recently. The haulage company (arranged by a foreign co-producer through a broker for transport of stage, set, costume and props between UK and european venues of a theatrical tour) were not particulary helpful to start with and were demanding tight turnarounds. I arranged with a venue for the trailer and unit to stay on site so that the driver could rest after we had finished our get out.
> One complication was that the driver had had to arrive a couple of hours before we needed him due to other loading docks being in use; this is where the trouble started: he spent his time in the pub. By the time we were loading he was incapable.
> After we were done, he closed the wagon despite still being falling over drunk and I went to sign off the crew. Despite me arranging for the driver to stay overnight I came out of the venue to find an empty dock. I hadn't taken the registration number.
> 
> ...



Crikey. Who was the haulage company? (PM me if you prefer.)


----------



## hackbike 666 (23 Apr 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> This could be a conspiracy, the SD card for my POV disappeared yesterday.



I just don't understand it...I had to nick an sd card from my Nintendo DS.


----------



## buddha (23 Apr 2010)

I had an 'incident' with an Iceland HGV last week. The driver cut across my path on a roundabout. I anticipated what he was going to do (as it wasn't the first time) and braked in time. Took the reg and complained to the CEO via email, asking that their drivers be more aware of other road users in the future etc...

A couple of days later I received a nice email from customer services apologising and stating that they will deal with the matter. They also want to send me a written apology and a 'gesture of goodwill'.

Hopefully (if they actually do something) this will at least make their drivers think twice around cyclists in the future


----------



## benborp (23 Apr 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Crikey. Who was the haulage company? (PM me if you prefer.)



A brief PM is on its way.


----------



## mr_cellophane (23 Apr 2010)

buddha said:


> I had an 'incident' with an Iceland HGV last week. The driver cut across my path on a roundabout.


His windscreen was probably covered in ash.


----------



## Armegatron (27 Apr 2010)

mr_cellophane said:


> His windscreen was probably covered in ash.


----------

