|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hugekebab
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:27 am Post subject: Please delete |
 |
|
The moderator Koharski has ruled my title was misleading and inflammatory, so I have decided to delete this thread
Last edited by hugekebab on Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:22 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GoldMember
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Watching TV while driving was a factor in 200 accidents last year, police say.
Shouldn't that read:
Koreans behind the steering wheel while the car was moving was a factor in 200 accidents last year.
Blame the TV not the driver.
It's the TV's fault! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roadballmint
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Location: Seoul, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
We could make the streets safer, but driving is just so boring! Put yourself in these people's shoes, everyone.
I <3 you, K-logic
| Quote: |
| I can't believe only 200 accidents occurred due to those TVs. The actual figures must be higher than that. |
I'm sure the number is much higher than that. Those are just accidents that get reported to the police. Most TV/email/text-related accidents probably end in a series of shouting, threatening, and ultimately some form of bribery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crossmr
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Hwayangdong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually what the court ruled was a ban on TVs wasn't legit. There are however laws that still exist to combat careless driving. If a taxi driver has a lot of down time, why shouldn't they get to watch some TV? sure they shouldn't do it while driving, but that is what existing laws are for. They just need to start enforcing the existing laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ukon
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tvs in cars really rare here....hell, I almost never see them talking on the phone or listening to the radio either....
leave the poor adjuessis alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
b-class rambler
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crossmr wrote: |
| Actually what the court ruled was a ban on TVs wasn't legit. There are however laws that still exist to combat careless driving. If a taxi driver has a lot of down time, why shouldn't they get to watch some TV? sure they shouldn't do it while driving, but that is what existing laws are for. They just need to start enforcing the existing laws. |
Agreed.
The thread title is not what happened at all. Seoul City passed a regulation banning tv in the front seats of taxis. The court ruled that this regulation was illegal because it was based on a 1961 law that had been superseded.
In other words, the court declared the regulation illegal because it hadn't been correctly formulated, drafted and passed, NOT because the court thought the regulation's intention (to ban tv in the front of taxis) was a bad idea. If anyone is an idiot here, it's not the court, but the Seoul city lawyers who messed up the drafting of the regulation.
As crossmr rightly pointed out above, there IS existing law which would enable drivers to be prosecuted for watching tv while driving. The issue is enforcement of that. And even that isn't as simple as you might assume. Nearly all in car tvs are also sat nav devices, which, it could be argued, actually make driving safer (or not, depending how they're used). So it's not enough for the police to see the tv on the dashboard, they need to see (a) that it's tv, not navi, being watched and (b) that it's the driver, not passengers, watching it.
I've seen plenty of cases where both (a) and (b) are certainly what's happening but enforcement isn't as easy as some people think. Nothing to stop a driver quickly unplugging his device when he sees the police ahead checking people, or quickly changing the screen to navi only.
There are 2 things I reckon would help. First, manufacturers should be told to only produce dash mounted devices that cut the tv signal when the car is moving. The GPS can detect whether the car is moving or stationary, so that shouldn't be a problem as long as they include a delay so that it doesn't start working again immediately once the car stops in traffic.
Secondly, there should be some kind of public awareness campaign to highlight the dangers. At present there aren't even any signs or posters around telling people they shouldn't be doing it, like there are for mobile phone use and drink driving. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crossmr
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Location: Hwayangdong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hugekebab wrote: |
Were you born completely without a sense of irony?
Of course I don't really think the courts ruled TVs as good for well-being, haha. |
Its hard to separate that from the daily ranting on here when you write stuff like:
| Quote: |
| Wow, Korean justice strikes again. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hugekebab
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crossmr wrote: |
| hugekebab wrote: |
Were you born completely without a sense of irony?
Of course I don't really think the courts ruled TVs as good for well-being, haha. |
Its hard to separate that from the daily ranting on here when you write stuff like:
| Quote: |
| Wow, Korean justice strikes again. |
|
OK Korean justice is exemplary. I'm wrong, you are right.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
b-class rambler
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hugekebab wrote: |
| b-class rambler wrote: |
| crossmr wrote: |
| Actually what the court ruled was a ban on TVs wasn't legit. There are however laws that still exist to combat careless driving. If a taxi driver has a lot of down time, why shouldn't they get to watch some TV? sure they shouldn't do it while driving, but that is what existing laws are for. They just need to start enforcing the existing laws. |
Agreed.
The thread title is not what happened at all. |
Were you born completely without a sense of irony?
|
:lol:Nah, how about yourself mate?
Did you notice that it wasn't your post I quoted?
The thought had occurred to me that YOU weren't being 100% serious with the wording. But I still think it possible, even likely, that a few people on here do think the title is not far off what another damn krazy Korean kourt was thinking.
| hugekebab wrote: |
| Wow, Korean justice strikes again. |
You also seem to have misunderstood the legal reasons for the decision yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hugekebab
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Y |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hugekebab
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand they were overruling it on grounds of technicality (a previously superseded law from the 60's.) However, I'm sure that the court had the option of ruling in favour in order to make clear an area of the law that is very wispy.
We had laws in the UK that technically made use of a mobile phone illegal, however, legislation was then brought in to deal with it specifically as the law was too vague in that area. I understand the notion that there can be over-legislation especially with regard to single issues when there are laws that technically cover the appropriate area, but I feel the court should have sided with the city on this as it is a matter of life and death and an outrageously hazardous pastime of many drivers here.
Anyway, enough of this, apologies if you were referring to another thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
b-class rambler
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No worries mate.
| hugekebab wrote: |
| However, I'm sure that the court had the option of ruling in favour in order to make clear an area of the law that is very wispy. |
I'm not so sure. I'm not enough of an expert on Korean law to know whether they had that option or not. It may have been a highly dangerous precedent to allow a regulation based on a law that no longer applied.
| hugekebab wrote: |
| We had laws in the UK that technically made use of a mobile phone illegal, however, legislation was then brought in to deal with it specifically as the law was too vague in that area. I understand the notion that there can be over-legislation especially with regard to single issues when there are laws that technically cover the appropriate area, but I feel the court should have sided with the city on this as it is a matter of life and death and an outrageously hazardous pastime of many drivers here. |
I agree with you here, however it's quite possible that the court DID side with the city's basic intention - they may well have told them, 'look you've ballsed this one up, so go and re-draft, re-submit it and do it properly next time.' It might also be reasonable for the court to have taken into account other relevant legislation already in force and having a similar effect to that intended by the misdrafted regulation.
To be fair, I think the originally linked BBC story was pretty poorly written. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hugekebab
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| b-class rambler wrote: |
No worries mate.
| hugekebab wrote: |
| However, I'm sure that the court had the option of ruling in favour in order to make clear an area of the law that is very wispy. |
I'm not so sure. I'm not enough of an expert on Korean law to know whether they had that option or not. It may have been a highly dangerous precedent to allow a regulation based on a law that no longer applied.
| hugekebab wrote: |
| We had laws in the UK that technically made use of a mobile phone illegal, however, legislation was then brought in to deal with it specifically as the law was too vague in that area. I understand the notion that there can be over-legislation especially with regard to single issues when there are laws that technically cover the appropriate area, but I feel the court should have sided with the city on this as it is a matter of life and death and an outrageously hazardous pastime of many drivers here. |
I agree with you here, however it's quite possible that the court DID side with the city's basic intention - they may well have told them, 'look you've ballsed this one up, so go and re-draft, re-submit it and do it properly next time.' It might also be reasonable for the court to have taken into account other relevant legislation already in force and having a similar effect to that intended by the misdrafted regulation. |
I'm not so sure, it seems that the current law doesn't give them the right to remove the TVs (see the last paragraph of the BBC article, which I assume is reasonably sourced.)
Removal of the TVs is in my view is simply the only answer to this problem, which is why the court, in my view, should have gone with the city as the 'superceded' legislation allowed for, but the current legislation does not. But like you say, neither of us are lawyers, this is just my opinion of what needs to be done in order to remove these TVs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
b-class rambler
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hugekebab wrote: |
| b-class rambler wrote: |
No worries mate.
| hugekebab wrote: |
| However, I'm sure that the court had the option of ruling in favour in order to make clear an area of the law that is very wispy. |
I'm not so sure. I'm not enough of an expert on Korean law to know whether they had that option or not. It may have been a highly dangerous precedent to allow a regulation based on a law that no longer applied.
| hugekebab wrote: |
| We had laws in the UK that technically made use of a mobile phone illegal, however, legislation was then brought in to deal with it specifically as the law was too vague in that area. I understand the notion that there can be over-legislation especially with regard to single issues when there are laws that technically cover the appropriate area, but I feel the court should have sided with the city on this as it is a matter of life and death and an outrageously hazardous pastime of many drivers here. |
I agree with you here, however it's quite possible that the court DID side with the city's basic intention - they may well have told them, 'look you've ballsed this one up, so go and re-draft, re-submit it and do it properly next time.' It might also be reasonable for the court to have taken into account other relevant legislation already in force and having a similar effect to that intended by the misdrafted regulation. |
I'm not so sure, it seems that the current law doesn't give them the right to remove the TVs (see the last paragraph of the BBC article, which I assume is reasonably sourced.)
Removal of the TVs is in my view is simply the only answer to this problem, which is why the court, in my view, should have gone with the city as the 'superceded' legislation allowed for, but the current legislation does not. But like you say, neither of us are lawyers, this is just my opinion of what needs to be done in order to remove these TVs. |
But the problem is that these TVs are not only TVs. They're also sat nav devices, which it's perefectly reasonable for a driver, and especially a taxi driver, to have in the car and be using. (The fact that the BBC article did not mention the dual function of these devices was one reason I thought it poorly written.)
That's why I suggested that a good solution might be to get manufacturers to ensure that the tv function doesn't work when the car is being driven or for a short time after it has stopped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| b-class rambler wrote: |
| But the problem is that these TVs are not only TVs. They're also sat nav devices, which it's perefectly reasonable for a driver, and especially a taxi driver, to have in the car and be using. |
Except the times you most need to look at them is when you're approaching traffic-filled, accident-prone intersections... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
