Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Transportation Cellphones United Kingdom Your Rights Online

Driver Using Two Cell Phones Gets Year-Long Driving Ban 478

Posted by Soulskill
from the gt-2-run-cops-r-bug'n-me dept.
coondoggie writes "This guy is the poster-child for why cell phone use in cars should be banned in more places. According to press out of the United Kingdom, a man who was driving at 70MPH while texting on one phone and talking on another has been banned from driving for a year. Initial reports said that the driver, David Secker, was apparently using his knees to steer the car, an accusation he tried to refute in court."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Driver Using Two Cell Phones Gets Year-Long Driving Ban

Comments Filter:
  • by ArhcAngel (247594) on Monday August 15, 2011 @09:08PM (#37102188)
    Unless of course you are talking on one phone and texting on another. I think there should be jail time for this behavior regardless of whether they injured someone.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by preacha (1233936)
      DIVING with your knees sounds pretty dangerous to me... I usually stick my arms out first when entering the water.
      • Damn you, now I'll have to try a knee first dive on the pool once summer hits the southern hemisphere. That will raise some eyebrows.
    • by jhoegl (638955)
      This is nothing... I was driving from St.Louis to Springfield, Ill and I happened to look over and saw someone reading the newspaper while driving.

      This kind of shit is not abnormal.
  • "This guy is the poster-child for why cell phone use in cars should be banned in more places."

    "was driving at 70MPH while texting on one phone and talking on another

    If we have to make an abnormally stupid person a poster boy for average people, shouldn't he be the poster boy for why using multiple cell phones in a car should be banned in more places?

    • by Seumas (6865)

      If they really cared about dangerous behavior on the road, they wouldn't give these assholes such light sentences. It's just like with driving drunk. Why should you ever *EVER* get your license back after you've been driving drunk? At the most lenient, you should get one chance. Drive drunk and you lose your license for five years. Drive while suspended during that time and lose it forever. Drive drunk a second time and lose it forever. Drive very dangerously (putting on makeup, getting dressed, having sex,

      • It actually might be better to just make driving tests significantly harder. And have to be retaken more often.

        • by whoever57 (658626)

          It actually might be better to just make driving tests significantly harder.

          I don't know what your perspective is here, but driving tests in the UK are significantly harder to pass than in the USA.

          • Maybe not hard enough? I've never taken a U.K. driving test, but I can def confirm that the driving tests here in the U.S. are a joke. Driving something as dangerous as a car comes with a lot of responsibility and should prob be limited to people who can prove that they can handle that responsibility.

          • It actually might be better to just make driving tests significantly harder.

            I don't know what your perspective is here, but driving tests in the UK are significantly harder to pass than in the USA.

            Well they have to be. You all drive on the wrong side of the road!

            • by whoever57 (658626)

              Well they have to be. You all drive on the wrong side of the road!

              At least the steering wheel is on the "right" side!

      • If they really cared about dangerous behavior on the road, they wouldn't give these assholes such light sentences. It's just like with driving drunk. Why should you ever *EVER* get your license back after you've been driving drunk? At the most lenient, you should get one chance.

        Well, then the definition of drunk driving comes into play. If I had two glasses of wine on a night out, am I legally drunk? I've seen enough cars flipped over with corpses inside at night due to exhaustion/lack of sleep of the driver to firmly believe that regardless of drunkenness a lot less people should be driving than there already are. (If anybody mistakes this for me being on favour of the utter moronic and destructive practice of drunk driving, you should try and understand what I'm talking about, a

  • by lucm (889690) on Monday August 15, 2011 @09:16PM (#37102264)

    I used to have a coworker who complained a lot about the price of car insurance. Then at some point he complained that he could not find insurance at all. I found it bizarre because I had no problem whatsoever with car insurance and we were practically neighbours.

    Apparently he was "extremely unlucky" (his words) because idiots kept stopping without warning in front of him on the street so he got in accidents all the time. Obviously these accidents had nothing to do with the fact that while driving he was also watching movies on his portable DVD because he "wanted to keep his mind busy". I also remember him submitting a bug fix from his laptop while driving.

    On a completely unrelated matter: this guy recently went back to visit his hometown... in China.

    • by AK Marc (707885)
      Did he ever live in Alaska? I've never had trouble with crashes, my fault or otherwise. However in Anchorage, I've been rear-ended three times. Twice while driving a bright-red Porsche 911 (the pickup truck was tall enough he completely missed my bumper and it cost his insurance company $3000 for hitting my car at under 5 mph while I was at a complete stop yielding to the fire engine).
      • You do realize that a Porsche 911 is virtually invisible to the Real Alaskan in the pickup truck. Your little effete toy likely didn't even begin to register as a vehicle. He probably thought is was just a piece of plastic that blew out of someone's front yard and he was doing everyone a favor by keeping it from blowing around even further.

        • by Nethead (1563)

          And a 911 is almost the last car I'd want in Anchorage. Even for the 2 weeks of the year you can drive it. I really liked the old Cherokee that ACS gave me to drive when we were working up there. It made the November trips to Soldotna almost enjoyable. It was also the only black rig in the telco fleet which was kinda of a cool. It was the company car for the CEO of alaska.net before ACS bought them. We drove that rig all over Alaska on the weekends sight seeing. During the week it was for site seeing

          • by adolf (21054)

            Even for the 2 weeks of the year you can drive it.

            Spoken as someone who has never seriously looked into the concept of "winter tires".

            As long as the tires (and, optionally, chains) are appropriate, and ground clearance is not an issue, any car works fine in the frozen north -- especially if the driven axle has the majority of the vehicle's weight on it. And this is, obviously, the case of a rear-engined, RWD 911.

            Compared in particular to a typical front-heavy RWD pickup truck, I'd suspect that the Porsche

        • by AK Marc (707885)
          If they are close enough, I'd be very hard to see, but from a few car lengths, the rarity of the car would get it much much more attention. They all said they saw me long before they hit me, other than the one person who hit me while I was driving an Alaskan pickup truck (for work, I only own small vehicles) who said they never saw me.
  • a man who was driving at 70MPH while texting on one phone and talking on another has been banned from driving for a year.

    If he managed to pull that off without crashing or injuring someone, my guess is he (would be/is) actually a fairly safe driver. I couldn't do that. Maybe they should get this guy to teach others how to actually drive. Minus the phones, of course. Couldn't possibly make most drivers worse, anyways. /p.

    • Re:I'm impressed (Score:4, Informative)

      by blueg3 (192743) on Monday August 15, 2011 @09:33PM (#37102410)

      Or he managed to be lucky for a while, which is far more likely.

    • Re:I'm impressed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mjwx (966435) on Monday August 15, 2011 @09:43PM (#37102496)

      If he managed to pull that off without crashing or injuring someone, my guess is he (would be/is) actually a fairly safe driver.

      The fact he was caught proves he is a terrible driver, but the fact everyone around him can actually drive and was paying attention to the road is what prevented this from becoming a pileup. Someone who willingly ignores not only road rules but basic common sense should not be driving, let alone teaching other people how to drive.

      People like him rarely injure themselves. It's the people they hit that get killed.

      • Sometimes they even emerge unscathed as others trying to avoid hitting them wind up colliding with someone else trying to avoid the moron.

        Mycroft
      • Well being caught may or may not imply he was a terrible driver. Depends what got the officers attention. Maybe the officer pulled him over because he swerved or almost hit another car, maybe the officer pulled him over because he was looking through his window and saw the guys knees on the wheel, and before you use the excuse if he were paying attention he'd have seen the cop, the guy may not have thought about what he was doing as a crime.
    • by dbIII (701233)
      I doubt it - just lucky nothing is in his way. As a pedestrian I've nearly been run over by people talking on phones and they never even noticed that I've run out of their way. On all but one occasion they were travelling at low speed and turning into driveways while talking on the phone. I gave one of those idiots nearly as big a scare as he gave me by yelling at him - he thought I'd come out of nowhere.
      The other occasion was a complete tool that was speeding, talking on his phone and driving on the wro
    • Saying that he is a great driver is like saying that indian drivers should be jet pilots because of their skill [youtube.com] and that russians shouldn't be allowed to even crawl out of their homes [youtube.com].
  • The fact that some people are stupid enough to think that they can safely drive when they are not looking at the road is utterly ridiculous. These people should not be given their licenses back, because they won't learn. Some time ago I mentioned in a journal entry here a similar dipshit who did a similar thing in MN [slashdot.org] - 80mph the wrong way down the road while texting. To the cop it looks like a drunk driver and from a public safety standpoint it is just as bad. Both should be mandatory felonies on the first offense.
    • by sheddd (592499)

      The fact that some people are stupid enough to think that they can safely drive when they are not looking at the road is utterly ridiculous.

      It's not a black and white issue (driver attention). You aren't looking at the road when you blink; that's around .3 seconds for the average blinker. If I'm on a road where I can survey the road for a mile in front, and a mile behind, and it's empty, I can fairly safely look away from the road for 15 seconds.

      It sounds like this guy didn't have the situational awareness to see the cop; that gives me some evidence this drivers attention wasn't on the road enough. Other things besides tech toys can con

      • The fact that some people are stupid enough to think that they can safely drive when they are not looking at the road is utterly ridiculous.

        It's not a black and white issue (driver attention).

        Actually, it is pretty simple to define what can and cannot be done safely.

        You aren't looking at the road when you blink; that's around .3 seconds for the average blinker.

        That is a trivial amount of time. On top of it, many people blink less often when driving than they do otherwise.

        I can fairly safely look away from the road for 15 seconds.

        No, you cannot do that safely. A lot can happen in 15 seconds. An animal or child could jump out in front of your car in that time frame. You could encounter debris on the road that you did not see previously because of road or weather conditions.

        Unless you are moving at 10mph or less, 15 seconds is far too long

  • David Secker, was apparently using his knees to steer the car, an accusation he tried to refute in court.

    If he did not want them to think he was driving with his knees when his hands were clearly unavailable, what the hell did he want to convince them he was using to grip the wheel ?

  • by whoever57 (658626) on Monday August 15, 2011 @10:09PM (#37102694) Journal
    The driver was also driving without insurance which would have helped to get the driving ban.
  • Indeed! A person who was skillfully using two phones at once and didn't cause an an accident is certainly the "poster-child for why cell phone use in cars should be banned." Not causing an accident is clearly evidence of how, um, accident-prone cell phone use while driving makes people!
    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      That's statistics for you.

      Everyone makes mistakes when driving: forgetting to look over the shoulder, overlooking a dangerous corner, forgetting to indicate direction (if only because you decide a bit too late to make that turn). If you say you never make mistakes, I don't believe you. You're not a robot.

      Luckily those mistakes usually do not cause accidents, as other drivers prevent them for you. You surely will remember some situations where you had to correct for someone else's driving.

      The thing is whe

  • Nice try, Limey (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TexVex (669445) on Monday August 15, 2011 @10:40PM (#37102906)

    Initial reports said that the driver, David Secker, was apparently using his knees to steer the car, an accusation he tried to refute in court.

    Back in the late eighties, before all these fancy gadgets came into being, I had (to my eternal amazement) the luck to witness a woman driving 75 mph on 285 west of Atlanta in bumper-to-bumper traffic reading a book. We're talking five lanes full of writhing idiots jockeying for position in a rush-hour race to get there first. That road was (and definitely still is) a horror story in progress. It was only a couple months before that I saw a car wrecked on the median, propped sideways on the concrete median divider, its engine block a good 150 feet down the road. Seriously, they just flat could not stop rush hour traffic to clean up the car, and I suppose an ambulance had taken the corpse(s) away previously. They'd have to wait for a break in the traffic at about 2 AM to get the car and its engine out of there.

    A book, for you youngins, is a stack of paper bound together with static text on each piece; when reading one, you are confronted with one to two thousand words at a time, and the words are all longhand. So, for the guy dealing with a couple hundred or so characters of text messages while yakking on the phone -- heh.

    There truly is nothing new under the sun.

  • This guy is the poster boy for why cell phone usage in cars should be banned in more places.

    Shouldn't the poster boy be someone who caused an accident? Who was in charge of the nomination process? Surely there is someone out there who ran into a school bus full of special needs children while texting, or something.

  • by Lord Bitman (95493) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @03:16AM (#37104370) Homepage

    in a country where it's perfectly possible to live without a car, this term is far too short. He should never be allowed behind the wheel on a public road again.

Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.

Working...