Clarkson may get points for talking on mobile...

AmDaMan · 12 Mar 2008 at 13:32

Bloody do gooders.

Muffin` · 12 Mar 2008 at 13:34

That verge looks awfully close for a 6L motorway. But the Daily Mail stating ALL the facts? HAHAHA

Muffin` · 12 Mar 2008 at 13:36

SDK^ said:
It's slightly annoying when as a Pro who gets paid to take photo's I'm being challenged by people who know nothing about the subject area.

/bangs head against wall

So you expect your word giving no proof or examples to be taken as gospel? Have you been on TalkPhotography too long?

InvaderGIR · 12 Mar 2008 at 13:39

SDK^ said:
With regard to this story have we real evidence that

1) It was taken using a mobile phone camera
2) It was taken at 70mph

Regardless of any of that a mobile phone camera would still produce a shot with the background (at that distance) sharp.

There is only the word of the guy that sent the photo in that they were doing 70mph.

InvG

therealnerd2 · 12 Mar 2008 at 13:44

To be honest i would greatly suspect that the bloke has caught clarkson on the phone on the motorway, in a jam or something, and the good old daily mail has added "at 70mph", cuz dats w.ot speed limit is init.

Still illegal though obviously.

SDK^ said:
It's slightly annoying when as a Pro who gets paid to take photo's I'm being challenged by people who know nothing about the subject area.

/bangs head against wall

Do you have any mobile phone shots to corroborate your theory?

Simian · 12 Mar 2008 at 13:45

InvaderGIR said:
There is only the word of the guy that sent the photo in that they were doing 70mph.

InvG

Yep... Unless another picture shows:

a) the Car,
b) Clarkson on his phone (BTW in that piccie it just looks like some random curly hair'd bloke driving a green LHD car with his finger in his ear!),
c) the Photographers Speedo...

there's no proof they were even moving!!

therealnerd2 · 12 Mar 2008 at 13:53

Simian said:
there's no proof they were even moving!!

I hope you realise this doesn't have any relevance to the legality of it.

Siliconslave · 12 Mar 2008 at 13:55

Simian said:
there's no proof they were even moving!!

indeed, my defense would be "i was parked in a car park, with the engine off, prove i wasn't"

Dutch Guy · 12 Mar 2008 at 13:56

therealnerd2 said:
I hope you realise this doesn't have any relevance to the legality of it.

Here in Holland it is only illegal to use a phone while moving, it is perfectly fine to use a mobile when standing still waiting for a green light :confused:

2Thumbs · 12 Mar 2008 at 13:57

AmDaMan said:
Bloody do gooders.

I'm sure if it was a member of the public that was doing it, everyone would be wanting to burn them at the stake.

InvaderGIR · 12 Mar 2008 at 13:58

Dutch Guy said:
Here in Holland it is only illegal to use a phone while moving, it is perfectly fine to use a mobile when standing still waiting for a green light

Have to have the handbrake on and the engine off over here.

That's what speaker phone was invented for...so much better than handsfree kits. (well not what they were invented for...but a brilliant use for them)

InvG

Freefaller · 12 Mar 2008 at 14:00

It's the Daily Mail - probably the most reliably newspaper ever. I believe everything they say word for word all the time absolutely and unequivocally.

InvaderGIR · 12 Mar 2008 at 14:01

Admin's bitch said:
It's the Daily Mail - probably the most reliably newspaper ever. I believe everything they say word for word all the time absolutely and unequivocally.

Poor Frenchie doesn't understand English papers...

InvG

2Thumbs · 12 Mar 2008 at 14:01

Admin's bitch said:
It's the Daily Mail - probably the most reliably newspaper ever. I believe everything they say word for word all the time absolutely and unequivocally.

If they printed that grass was green, I'd still look it up.

Fr0dders · 12 Mar 2008 at 14:02

i really despise the daily mail. They should be nuked off the planet

Daily Mail said:
And in December, he found himself at the centre of another investigation by Thames Valley Police after grappling with a hooded teenager who shouted at him as he left an entertainment complex in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire.

The force later decided to take no action as there was "no evidence a crime took place".

Oh come off it. The police actually took a very different view of the event. The above reads like he assaulted a teenager, but couldnt be prooved so got off. But the police said

The Daily Mail said:
It became apparent that, if any offence had occurred, it was the man who was the victim."

Thats from the daily mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499845&in_page_id=1770

Notice how when they're trying to make him seem like a bad guy, they leave off the "he was victim" part of the quote and just quote the bit about "no offence occured"

DIE DAILY MAIL DIE !

Bubo · 12 Mar 2008 at 14:07

If Amy Winehouse get filmed alegedly smoking crack and get away with it, there is no way the rozzers will do anything to Clarkson. Anyway, that is clearly a TV remote control, not a mobile phone.

Gaygle · 12 Mar 2008 at 14:07

The Daily Mail just seem like professional **** stirrers.

It's annoying that they've taken Clarkson's photo, just because it is him. Anyone else, they wouldn't have cared about. That "Adam Blake" is obviously a **** and just did it to be in the newspaper - not to enforce any kind of law, like he's making out.

****.

Morrey360 · 12 Mar 2008 at 14:08

This is clearly a stationary vehicle. At 70mph even a decent camera would blur the trees along the roadside.

Gaygle · 12 Mar 2008 at 14:11

Morrey360 said:
This is clearly a stationary vehicle. At 70mph even a decent camera would blur the trees along the roadside.

lol....just lol....

Somebody tell this guy why he has just failed...

shauncr91 · 12 Mar 2008 at 14:21

AmDaMan said:
Bloody do gooders.

They arent do gooders, they are just attention seekers/greedy. I would be willing to put money on the fact that if they saw any average bloke on the phone while driving, they wouldnt even give it a second thought.