French Train Passenger Fined $155 For Using Phone on Speaker (thelocal.fr) 109
A passenger on the French rail network SNCF has revealed that he received a $155 fine for using his phone on loud speaker within a train station. From a report: The passenger, named only as David, told French TV channel BFM that he was on the phone to his sister while waiting at Nantes station when the SNCF staff member told him to switch his phone's loud speaker off, or risk being fined. When he argued, he was served with the $155 fine, which has been increased to $207 because he did not pay it immediately. Further reading: Flying Was Already the Worst. Then America Stopped Using Headphones.
Not as bad as smoking, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Using your speakerphone in public like that is not as bad as smoking for those around you, but it is equally irritating. Have some consideration and use headphones.
Re:Not as bad as smoking, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? I'd rather have such social norms enforced by law than, say, waiting for someone to get irritated enough to commit an assault.
Just be considerate of those around you. If that's too much to ask of you, you need to go live in the woods far from other people.
Re: (Score:1)
Absolutely. People accept enforcement by police much better than from other people these days. Public shaming or approbation do not work like they did 50 years ago.
There is a risk that police will overreact and beat or kill someone that has to be considered.
But imagine if *everyone* was using their phones on speakerphone at the same time. It wouldn't work. Get a headset or earbuds for use when travelling.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a risk that police will overreact and beat or kill someone that has to be considered.
Keep in mind that this did not happen in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
It should be a social norm to try to avoid brain cancer.
Also, the fine could increase to 5xGDP - presumably he's not going to be coerced to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, and he got off lightly. If it was up to me I'd not only kill the man who did it but then I'd slaughter the whole of his family and all his friends and relations, and then burn down his house. Then I'd go and sing comic songs on the ruins.
OK, maybe I'd spare the friends and relations, and not sing comic songs on the ruins.
Re:Not as bad as smoking, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
That leaves only vigilante enforcement, which will eventually lead to violent altercations.
Re: (Score:2)
If the train was privately owned, then it would handle the situation. Private businesses wouldn't let a few bad actors destroy the experience of using their services.
Re: (Score:2)
https://media.tenor.com/bFY_W7... [tenor.com]
Re:Not as bad as smoking, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Government, police, and law are nothing more than an organised system to enforce social norms. That's literally their purpose. If you don't like it, maybe there's a tribe in Africa you can live with. ... Except you'll quickly find that their social norms are also enforced by government, usually one or two village elders.
Re: Not as bad as smoking, but... (Score:2)
Re:Not as bad as smoking, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Not as bad as smoking, but... (Score:2)
In an outdoor or public or noisy environment, putting the phone to your ear is still better than putting it in speaker. It doesnâ(TM)t take much background noise to make people turn up the volume. Turning the speaker up to max so you can hear it just makes everything worse.
Re: Not as bad as smoking, but... (Score:2)
Can you quantify that risk?
Probably not because the risk is so low.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-c... [cancer.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The French are loons - e.g. your rail pass has no photo because you bought it thirty seconds ago - time for a stand-off with several angry police armed with automatic weapons.
This literally happened to me in a Paris station as we were going from the place where we bought the rail pass on the way to a photo booth.
Re: Not as bad as smoking, but... (Score:3)
Me thinks you're not telling the whole story.
As a French who never put a photo on my rail pass, such a thing never happened.
First you are only asked to show your pass when boarding or in the train, not while going to the photo booth. And if you don't have a photo, you're simply asked for an id card.
Re: (Score:2)
That's literally the whole story as far as my contribution goes. Probably there was some security threat we weren't aware of. The police were checking passes at an arbitrary point in the station which they had blocked off.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Not as bad as smoking, but... (Score:1)
I think the people I see holding their phone like a WWII walkie-talkie and yelling at it like a chimp on banana day are either: unable to figure out how to use earbuds, or can't afford them.
Re: Not as bad as smoking, but... (Score:2)
I was on a train. A guy brought a boombox on it and intentionally cracked up the volume playing obnoxiously loud music. He also made a point of screaming at the lady accompanying him. I was powerless. They guy was super aggressive and was looking for a fight. I'm assuming everyone here would be in favor of fining them too.
Devil's advocate here (Score:2)
Many people are happy by this ruling because speakerphone annoys them.
But why? What if I am having a conversation with my friend Bob? He talks, I talk, you can hear us both. If I talk to my cell phone, and Bob talks out of my phone, you can hear us both. In both scenarios you hear two people talking.
What is it about cell speaker phones that makes you all so uptight?
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Expect those pesky free-speech implications. This shit wouldn't fly over here, thank god.
There are no free-speech implications. You don't have a right to say or converse in whatever way you want wherever you want. (Insert yelling-fire-in-crowded-theater meme.)
This obstinate fellow could still have carried on his conversation using headphones.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This obstinate fellow could still have carried on his conversation using headphones.
Using speakerphone in public rubs me the wrong way... badly. But what meaningful difference is there really between:
a) person yelling at speakerphone
b) person yelling on headphones
Cause, let's be honest, if someone is talking on speakerphone at a normal or below average level with the speaker not all the way up, you'd hardly notice a difference between that an a normal phone call. And I clearly remember when bluetooth headsets first took off and everyone looked like EDP's talking to themselves, LOUDLY, whil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're using the speaker, then there are two loud people annoying everyone around them as opposed to one.
Again, it seems the key is "loud". How does having two involved change things? What if it were two people talking loudly? Or one person on a normal phone talking loudly and dominating the conversation (so just as much loud speech)?
FWIW, I live in NYC. A lot of things are loud. There are a lot of loud people. A loud person on a speakerphone still annoys me, but it's no big deal next to the dozen other loudly talking people in earshot. I'm sure this taints my view, but still don't think one should draw the li
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just about literal noise levels, there's a more subtle social norm around respect and courtesy here (maybe it doesn't translate so well into the US context).
The point is - two people talking loudly are a bit annoying, but they're having a conversation, it's a normal and expected part of being in public.
A person on the phone, has to literally press a specific button and use the phone in a non-default way to purposely TURN ON the other voice, thus it becomes a very avoidable and discourteous incident
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it's a bit rude, so let's make it illegal? Is that what you're saying? Nah, I disagree with the logic of this provision.
Is there a technical audio advantage to using loudspeaker? No. Is there perhaps some disability/access issue where it's easier to use loudspeaker than speak normally or with earbuds? No.
FYI, you're WRONG on both accounts here. I'm not claiming this guy falls into either of these categories, but the answer is certainly yes to both of them. Here's a very simple example: your earpiece on your phone is clogged or broken, so you can't hear well enough through it, and you don't have earbuds with you. Another is those hard of hearing and/or elderly - the volume is simply muc
Re: (Score:3)
Turn off the speaker. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:1)
Explain for the less enlightened amongst us how this is a "free speech" issue?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know where "here" is but in the United States, the government may implement "reasonable time, place, and manner" restrictions [mtsu.edu] on expressions of speech. You don't have a free speech right to march up and down a residential street at 3AM with a bullhorn and I would argue that you don't have a right to make loud disruptive telephone calls in public either.
Re: (Score:1)
There are no free speech implications. If this was in the US the passenger would have been trespassed, and then jailed/fined for non-compliance with the order.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Public nuisance, disorderly conduct, possible noise pollution laws in some places, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US it would be the corporation operating the train having a policy of no use of speakerphone in communal areas. Since the train is private property they can make up and enforce almost any regulation they want. Hardly anyone in the US travels by train though so a more common example would be the idiots on planes who think they can do whatever they want.
Your behavior on commercial airliners is governed by Federal regulations. If a flight attendant tells you to do/not do something and you don't comply, you can find yourself in some seriously deep shit [faa.gov] (see the second bullet regarding cellphone use), depending on what you're doing and the manner of your non-compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
Any employee of any private business you visit can tell you to stop doing just about anything you are doing, or leave the premises. You aren't allowed to just start arguing with them about it. In the US, when you are ordered to leave because you break some arbitrary policy, you are legally obligated to leave.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Biological necessity. This is not something you need to worry about. Ain’t nobody making babies with you any time soon, my little chickadee, despite your humoungous and oh-so-delicate bollocks. I’ve already done what you’ll not be able to do, and fathered two kids.
Great (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
Almost like it was considered rude to be disruptive to the strangers around you.
It really is. If you're foolish enough to answer your phone in the quiet section on a Japanese train the only possible way to save yourself is to say - quietly - "I can't talk, I'm on a train" then immediately hang up and give a small apologetic bow to everyone in earshot.
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
I was on the train in Tokyo at rush-hour earlier this year. Packed, but almost silent. Small whispers at most. Almost like it was considered rude to be disruptive to the strangers around you.
It's not almost. It is considered rude. Here's why. Japanese society is very workaholic, especially for salary men. If the boss wants to go drinking after work and wants his underlings to go, they go. Stay out until 2 AM on a Monday night? Yep. Also some workers commute by various trains from very far away. So some of the passengers may be exhausted and want to sleep when they can, so that's mostly why they are quiet.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean people are being considerate of others around them? That can't be right. Why would they do that?
Re: (Score:3)
Here in the Netherlands we have silent first class sections, but often when it's a very busy saturday there will be second class ticket holders sitting in it and making noise. I can't really blame them because I'd feel the same when the scheduled train is too short to hold all the passengers.
Luckily it doesn't happen that often and I can enjoy my journey in peace most times (which is why I pay for a first class unlimited weekend subscription in the first place).
I do hope the newest trains will improve upon
Re: (Score:3)
Well no, their best idea came just after the end of enlightenment. It's definitely an idea we need to consider again.
Re: (Score:2)
Well no, their best idea came just after the end of enlightenment. It's definitely an idea we need to consider again.
I'm not a great student of history. Could you "enlighten" me as to what you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Well no, their best idea came just after the end of enlightenment. It's definitely an idea we need to consider again.
I'm not a great student of history. Could you "enlighten" me as to what you mean?
Sorry, now I think you meant the end of nobility, the Revolution, and/or the rise of Napoleon. Some of that was a good idea, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Well no, their best idea came just after the end of enlightenment. It's definitely an idea we need to consider again.
I'm not a great student of history. Could you "enlighten" me as to what you mean?
Sorry, now I think you meant the end of nobility, the Revolution, and/or the rise of Napoleon. Some of that was a good idea, I suppose.
Wait, you mean in 1815, the year the enlightenment ended, and after Napoleon abdicated?
I should have just kept my mouth shut. I will now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, strictly speaking the revolution itself was a failure, didn't get anywhere close to London and the King or Parliament. As a war of secession, it was a total success, and upon that success, the American people were happy to settle for their own country. If they'd taken the war to England with the goal of actually overthrowing the King, things may have been bloody.
sacré Dieu (Score:2)
Sacrebleu!
Re: (Score:2)
Alors, êtes-vous pour ou contre?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: sacré Dieu (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Against. Let the man speak. It's just as easy to politely ask a person to not use their phone on speaker in crowded situations. If the person refuses, politely ask them to exit the building and continue their conversation.
Re: sacré Dieu (Score:2)
I have tried that numerous times in movie theaters. Has not worked once.
Re: (Score:2)
Movie theater owners would be wise to invest in a Faraday cage that surrounds the inside of the viewing area. I have not been to a theater in well over 15 years but I can see how this could be annoying at the least.
Re: sacré Dieu (Score:2)
They also would need to invest in gags, to stop patrons from talking non stop, or smoking weed. I wish I was making that last one up.
"I does whats I wants" (Score:2)
NICE! (Score:5, Funny)
[jack nicholson nodding and smiling gif]
Why .. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[Why] .. is the French rail authority fining people in dollars?
Silly wabbit. He was fined in euros. €150 it appears, escalated to €200.
And flying a kite in a public place (Score:2)
is illegal in the UK. Every country has its weird laws. Who cares?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, a $207 fine for public nuisance is a non issue.
Re: (Score:2)
France for the win! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately when you get there you'll quickly find that the fact that they are bitching on the media shows what kind of a crazy place it is in the first place. This is a feel good story, but no doubt the guy proceeded to go on a riot and set a car on fire afterwards.
Fine amount is wrong (Score:1)
Unlikely he was fined $155 USD. More likely €150 EUR.
Only $155? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some are poor. 150 euros sends the message and does the work of a fine. Society must accommodate the rich and the poor, and the idea of a fine is to modify behavior, not bankrupt people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, they're not taking the train?
Re: Only $155? (Score:2)
Even wealthy people take the train in Europe. It's the fastest method of transportation for many routes. The TGV in France is usually quite nice, too.
Trains are what I miss the most about living in Europe.
We need more of this (Score:2)
Don't stop at trains, let's get planes and shopping centers on the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear that my wife?? WELL?!?!?
Good! (Score:2)
25 years ago, living in Chicago and commuting via the El, morons with the "coolest, smallest" cellphones would be talking so loud that on the el, with the screeches as the train took the curves, half the car could hear them.
The rest of us were *so* interested in their conversations. NOT.
Re: (Score:2)
Good! (Score:2)
Entitled little cnuts
Re: (Score:2)
CHEESE EATING NON SPEAKERPHONE USING... (Score:1)
Surrender monkeys.
Man the French sure do know how to ruin a perfectly good phone call with your sister.
Next they'll be sipping vin et fromage while watching a 3rd world launch of a non-reusable rocket from a place they took over forcefully from the natives, and then put out press releases extolling how awesome they are and that SpaceX sucks.
France. Showing the worst Europe can be post WWII's Germany.
But WHY do people do this? (Score:2)
Like this:
https://newsthump.com/wp-conte... [newsthump.com]
WHY do people do this? Why not just hold the phone to your ear?
I love this (Score:2)
Like in every TGV? (Score:2)
You have to go to a gangway to phone, even if NOT on speaker, since the dude USING the phone is ALWAYS on and A speaker.
No sympathy. (Score:2)
That's Europe for you... (Score:1)
Good. Nay, Great. (Score:2)
He was warned. He didn't comply. He got fined.
Excellent. This is the government intervention that people want and need.
Hero of the day (Score:2)
I was on a train from London to Manchester last week. An exec-looking guy kept talking loudly on the phone in my QUIET carriage, clearly still in a business meeting. I asked him to turn it off or move to a different carriage. He just smirked and continued talking. Then a rough-looking scally stood up, walked up to us, snatched the phone from the guy's hand and stomped on it, killing the handset for good. The whole train erupted in applause. By the time British Transport Police got onto the train, the hero w