How to access RAC Traffic Master from Virgin without going through the menus

This info will be useless to most people, but hopefully spot on for
somebody:

I'm on Virgin and use the "RAC Traffic Master" number a heck of a lot.
The problem is that this option is in the "Virgin Extras" menu, and on my
phone takes 10 button presses to connect. And funnily enough that tends to
be 10 button presses while driving with the other hand / half of the brain!

I asked Virgin CS if there was a number I could dial instead but they just
said "no" (as in <little britain> "..puter says nuh..." </little britain> ).

So I rang T-Mobile, and they said their number was 1740, so I gave it a try
and it works!

Now I've stored it in the phone with a voice tag all I have to do is press
one button (without looking away from the road) and say "Traffic" and I'm
in.

All I have to do now is wait for the bill to compare charges with Virgin
Extras - my guess is it will be about the same but who knows.

HTH Somebody,
Regards,
Dz

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:57:57 GMT, "Dransfield"
<m.dransfield@virgin.net> wrote:

>And funnily enough that tends to
>be 10 button presses while driving with the other hand / half of the brain!


That's Illegal and stupid for a start
--

http://Borg.no-ip.com

XJ900 Trike GS850 Trike


Some people are like slinkys....
no real use but it makes you smile when they fall down stairs!

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:18:23 +0000, BORG <Borg@deadspam.com> wrote:

>That's Illegal and stupid for a start


That's unhelpful and completely incorrect..for a start.

It is perfectly legal to use a mobile phone in a car as long as the phone
is secured in a fixed holder. So the OP would still have to take one hand
off the wheel to dial in a completely legal manner!!
--

Regards

John [Essex, UK]
Remove the obvious spamtrap to reply

"JC" <johncalias-newsgroupsATyahooD0TcoD0Tuk> wrote in
message news:vkbgq1djjvdq714torpk93h2nshsoerjip@4ax.com
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:18:23 +0000, BORG
> <Borg@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > That's Illegal and stupid for a start
>
>
> That's unhelpful and completely incorrect..for a start.
>
> It is perfectly legal to use a mobile phone in a car as
> long as the phone is secured in a fixed holder. So the OP
> would still have to take one hand off the wheel to dial
> in a completely legal manner!!

It's still stupid to faff about pressing 10+ buttons though. It takes your
attention off the road. I always use either one-touch memories or voice
dialling.

Ivor

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:40r7b4F1bd8asU1@individual.net...
>
>
> "JC" <johncalias-newsgroupsATyahooD0TcoD0Tuk> wrote in
> message news:vkbgq1djjvdq714torpk93h2nshsoerjip@4ax.com
> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:18:23 +0000, BORG
> > <Borg@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That's Illegal and stupid for a start
> >
> >
> > That's unhelpful and completely incorrect..for a start.
> >
> > It is perfectly legal to use a mobile phone in a car as
> > long as the phone is secured in a fixed holder. So the OP
> > would still have to take one hand off the wheel to dial
> > in a completely legal manner!!
>
> It's still stupid to faff about pressing 10+ buttons though. It takes your
> attention off the road. I always use either one-touch memories or voice
> dialling.
>
Of course you don't search through your 32 preset radio stations then mess
with the air con, switch the rear heated screen on then fiddle about with
your electric window buttons. We have all done a certain slant of the
routine like that whilst driving so what is the big difference between
pressin 10 buttons on a phone and 10 buttons on a car radio? It would be
interesting to see the stats for accidents that happened whilst the driver
was pissing about with car accessories.

"Simon" <If u think this accounts fast you should see the
other one@posters.for> wrote in message
news:fT%pf.12394$iz3.9693@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:40r7b4F1bd8asU1@individual.net...
> >
> >
> > "JC" <johncalias-newsgroupsATyahooD0TcoD0Tuk> wrote in
> > message news:vkbgq1djjvdq714torpk93h2nshsoerjip@4ax.com
> > > On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:18:23 +0000, BORG
> > > <Borg@deadspam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's Illegal and stupid for a start
> > >
> > >
> > > That's unhelpful and completely incorrect..for a
> > > start.
> > >
> > > It is perfectly legal to use a mobile phone in a car
> > > as long as the phone is secured in a fixed holder. So
> > > the OP would still have to take one hand off the
> > > wheel to dial in a completely legal manner!!
> >
> > It's still stupid to faff about pressing 10+ buttons
> > though. It takes your attention off the road. I always
> > use either one-touch memories or voice dialling.
> >
> Of course you don't search through your 32 preset radio
> stations then mess with the air con, switch the rear
> heated screen on then fiddle about with your electric
> window buttons. We have all done a certain slant of the
> routine like that whilst driving so what is the big
> difference between pressin 10 buttons on a phone and 10
> buttons on a car radio? It would be interesting to see
> the stats for accidents that happened whilst the driver
> was pissing about with car accessories.

Actually, I only ever listen to either Radio 2, Radio 4 or CD's. Switching
between these is a single button press in each case. I don't mess with the
heating or other controls while actually moving, although I confess to
doing so while stopped in traffic or at lights. Oh before you ask, no I
don't switch CD's on the move either.


Ivor

In article <40rik8F1a63hdU1@individual.net>, Ivor Jones
<ivor@despammed.invalid> writes

snip

>Oh before you ask, no I
>don't switch CD's on the move either.

Totally OT but since using hand-held phones is illegal, why aren't
single CD units? I could take a cassette out of the unit, chuck it on
the passenger seat, open a new case and insert the cassette all with one
hand. Doing that with a CD is impossible. Boot changers are great but
single CD units are a menace.
--
Peter

Hey guys you are all on the wrong track.
The problem is not so much FINGERING the phone, it's holding a CONVERSATION
while driving.
The GSM compression losses quite a lot of the original sound and your brain
needs to subconsciously make out the words as well as take in what is being
said and think of the answer.
Regards,
Martin

Ivor Jones wrote:

[on the subject of using accessories/mobile phones whilst driving]
>
> Actually, I only ever listen to either Radio 2, Radio 4 or CD's. Switching
> between these is a single button press in each case. I don't mess with the
> heating or other controls while actually moving, although I confess to
> doing so while stopped in traffic or at lights. Oh before you ask, no I
> don't switch CD's on the move either.
>
>
> Ivor

If only we could all be like you Ivor the world would be a better
place, wouldn't it?

"Get Real" <sqlstuck@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1135178959.942336.158800@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> [on the subject of using accessories/mobile phones whilst
> driving]
> >
> > Actually, I only ever listen to either Radio 2, Radio 4
> > or CD's. Switching between these is a single button
> > press in each case. I don't mess with the heating or
> > other controls while actually moving, although I
> > confess to doing so while stopped in traffic or at
> > lights. Oh before you ask, no I don't switch CD's on
> > the move either.
> >
> >
> > Ivor
>
> If only we could all be like you Ivor the world would be
> a better place, wouldn't it?

If you say so.

Ivor

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:55:27 -0000, "Martin²" <never@give.one> wrote:

>Hey guys you are all on the wrong track.

No. They are discussing the law

>The problem is not so much FINGERING the phone, it's holding a CONVERSATION
>while driving.

That may (or may not) be the case, but the law is quite specific, and
it does not refer to holding a conversation or pressing buttons: it
refers to holding the phone.

>The GSM compression losses quite a lot of the original sound and your brain
>needs to subconsciously make out the words as well as take in what is being
>said and think of the answer.

You do read a lot of rubbish in newsgroups, but that bit of utter tosh
must be worthy of an award for being one of the biggest heaps of
steaming poo this year.

It's just plain rubbish.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

Hairydog:
>No. They are discussing the law.

Not quite, as per subject, the initial discussion was about usage.
The law is an ass.
It should really ban ALL phone calls while driving, but as usual Lab. gov.
muddled it up,
leaving it fairly un-enforceable mess.

>You do read a lot of rubbish in newsgroups,
Well I am happy to agree with you there.

Now, kindly explain yourself:
Are you denying that GSM codec, unlike other ones, losses a significant
amount of sound ?
Have you tried a VoIP call using GSM ?
There is published scientific evidence proving the only reason it works is
that human brain can 'guess' the rest.
Just like when you hear just a faint, distant music you can recognise the
tune (if you know it).

I remember a TV program (Tomorrow's World possibly) where they tested people
on driving simulators while they held a conversation on mobile phones. They
concluded that the mental effort required clearly impeded the drivers
attention and concentration.

Or do you have another reason for claiming my statement was rubbish ?
Lets hear your 'hairy dog story'.
No regards,
Martin

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:00:03 -0000, "Martin²" <never@give.one> wrote:

>I remember a TV program (Tomorrow's World possibly) where they tested people
>on driving simulators while they held a conversation on mobile phones. They
>concluded that the mental effort required clearly impeded the drivers
>attention and concentration.

Oh, I do apologise. I hadn't realised that you had such precise,
peer-reviewed, authoritative research to back your assertions. And
such clear evidence that the cause of this attention deficit was GSM
encoding, rather than holding a conversation.

>Or do you have another reason for claiming my statement was rubbish ?

I don't need another. It was utter drivel. You are spouting crap. It
is not true. It is balderdash.

Yes, of course holding a conversation distracts drivers. That's why it
is an offence for a car driver to have a discussion with someone
sitting in the back seat when the radio is on: you can't hear them
properly and it takes lots of attention to work out their words.

The reason that holding the phone is what triggers illegality in
mobile use is that the GSM signal leaks into the nerves in their
fingers and addles the brains of drivers. If they don't hold the
problem, this is not a problem.

OK, maybe the previous two paragraphs are not quite correct.

The reason the law is as it is is because it was drafted by fools. The
reason is it so widely ignored is probably that people noticed that.

People know that eating junkfood and smoking kills them but they still
do it. What make is you think a £30 fine is a bigger deterrent than a
premature death?

If you really think that banning the use of a mobile phone when
driving could be enforced, why do you think they can't even enforce
the ban on hand-held ones, which are dead easy to spot?

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

<hairydog@despammed.com> wrote:
> "Martin²" <never@give.one> wrote:
[...]
>> I remember a TV program (Tomorrow's World possibly) where they
>> tested people on driving simulators while they held a conversation
>> on mobile phones. They concluded that the mental effort required
>> clearly impeded the drivers attention and concentration.
> Oh, I do apologise. I hadn't realised that you had such precise,
> peer-reviewed, authoritative research to back your assertions.

Oh, it's also backed up with further results from that prestigious
research outfit, Mythbusters

--
Only a life lived for others is a life worth while.
- Albert Einstein

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:21:18 +0000, deadmail@burnt.org.uk wrote:

>Is this possible? I wouldn't have thought GPRS could give you the
>required bandwidth.

I assumed that he was talking a call from or to a GSM phone via a VOIP
connection. Something I do every day, with no trouble at all.

There are some VOIP encoding schemes that would work over a GSM data
connection, just about. But not very well.

>In any case VOIP doesn't use the GSM CODECs within the phone, does it?

No, but you can choose a GSM encoding for VOIP. Though I'm not sure
how widely it is supported.

>What have I misunderstood here?

That Martin2 is a pillock who hasn't a clue what he is on about.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!