“I was just playing on my phone�: driver’s excuse when cyclist asked why he’d stopped

On 15/06/2020 11:17, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2020 09:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 23:27, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2020 17:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 14:39, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2020 14:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 01:32, JNugent wrote:

Whatever that means. shrug

Oh good, it got through.

But to some limited extent, that is correct. You can "find"
people guilty even when they're not guilty.

It's good of you to allow this.

I don't. I am ridiculing you for that approach.

I know that. I was mocking your sloppy language.

Oh dear...

Oh, you wanted it to be taken in context and not literally? Well,
whatever next?

The word "played with" could have meant anything or nothing, from
recoveringÂ* a fallen phone from the footwell to plugging it in to
recharge. Without making calls, sending texts or checking email,
I've done those and other things, having first stopped the car.
Haven't you?

Wriggle.

Prove that "played with" means the same as "used".

No need. For all your fantasies, this is not a court of law.

Good... you've woken up to that at last.

So how, where, when and by whom do you reckon that the alleged "offence"
will be taken into account?

Err... "playing with his phone". Do keep up.

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 8:07:47 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

Err... "playing with his phone". Do keep up.

QUOTE:
Can I use my phone while driving if I'm not moving? Contrary to what
many drivers seem to think, the law still applies when your vehicle is
stopped at lights or in heavy traffic. If your engine is running,
your phone should be nowhere near your hands.
ENDS

He not only admits to "playing with his phone", but proudly shows it off to the cyclist with it in his hand, whereas it should be "nowhere near your hands".

Clueless idiot.

On 15/06/2020 20:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/06/2020 11:17, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2020 09:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 23:27, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2020 17:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 14:39, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2020 14:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2020 01:32, JNugent wrote:

Whatever that means. shrug

Oh good, it got through.

But to some limited extent, that is correct. You can "find"
people guilty even when they're not guilty.

It's good of you to allow this.

I don't. I am ridiculing you for that approach.

I know that. I was mocking your sloppy language.

Oh dear...

Oh, you wanted it to be taken in context and not literally? Well,
whatever next?

The word "played with" could have meant anything or nothing, from
recoveringÂ* a fallen phone from the footwell to plugging it in to
recharge. Without making calls, sending texts or checking email,
I've done those and other things, having first stopped the car.
Haven't you?

Wriggle.

Prove that "played with" means the same as "used".

No need. For all your fantasies, this is not a court of law.

Good... you've woken up to that at last.

So how, where, when and by whom do you reckon that the alleged
"offence" will be taken into account?

Err... "playing with his phone". Do keep up.

Quite so.

And what does it mean?

How is it different from "buggering about with" as it would be said by
one or two of my Yorkshire friends whilst trying to connect the charging
lead to the cigar lighter?

Be precise.