Just come across this new Daily Mail on-line story:
tinyurl.com/korvlmn
Interested in others' viewpoints.
|
>> I'm not clicking that link, but........ >>
Do you seriously think I would post a dubious link....? (Rolls Eyes)
|
>> >> I'm not clicking that link, but........ >>
>>
>> Do you seriously think I would post a dubious link....? (Rolls Eyes)
>>
You told us it was dubious. Doesn't get more dubious than Daily Wail. I'm not upping their clicks.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 13 Aug 13 at 19:51
|
>> You told us it was dubious. Doesn't get more dubious than Daily Wail. I'm not upping their clicks. >>
Where have I told you it was dubious? If you didn't click on it, how do you know the source?
|
>> If you didn't click on it, how do you know the source?
You gave a big clue in your post (at the start of this thread) that it came from the Daily Mail.
"Just come across this new Daily Mail on-line story"
|
>> "Just come across this new Daily Mail on-line story">>
Which makes the avoidance of the TINYurl link even more pathetic...(Rolls Eyes)
|
>> >> "Just come across this new Daily Mail on-line story">>
>>
>> Which makes the avoidance of the TINYurl link even more pathetic...(Rolls Eyes)
>>
Now you've lost me. Your original post had a TINYurl link, which you said linked to the Daily mail website. I don't want to click on Daily Mail links as I don't want to improve their website hit numbers.
So what on earth are you rolling your eyes about?
|
New powers come into force on Friday that could lead to millions of fines being handed out to motorists by police for committing driving offences they did not know existed.
Under the new offence of 'careless driving', motorway drivers hogging the middle and outside lanes, and those who tailgate, could be slapped with on-the-spot fines of £100 and three penalty points on their licences.
And aliens could land and I could be declared queen and Gazza could reform...
Last edited by: madf on Tue 13 Aug 13 at 15:25
|
Just had a call from a BBC reporter who wanted me to be interviewed by phone (on behalf of lorry drivers) live tomorrow morning about this....then she told me someone had to be on the M25 at around 10.15 to talk to them:)
I explained it would be unsafe for any professional driver to talk on the phone whilst driving and we couldn't do it!
Pat
|
>>
>> I explained it would be unsafe for any professional driver to talk on the phone
>> whilst driving and we couldn't do it!
>>
>> Pat
>>
Surely, whether one is paid to carry out the activity or not is irrelevant.
Talking on the phone while driving is either safe, or it's not!
|
>> Surely, whether one is paid to carry out the activity or not is irrelevant.
>>
>> Talking on the phone while driving is either safe, or it's not!
>>
I would say it's relevant to the extent that a higher standard might fairly be expected from someone who does the thing for a living.
|
>> would say it's relevant to the extent that a higher standard might fairly be expected from someone who does the thing for a living.<<
Why?
If it's unsafe it's unsafe, if it's illegal it's illegal, if it's a matter of common sense to decide not to do talk on a phone while driving then surely we can expect anyone who holds a driving licence to respect those things.
Surely the roads would be safer if we ALL drove to the highest standard and it's certainly no excuse to claim you are a 'non' professional driver.
For what it's worth (since it seems I need to explain), is that the person who called me wanting an interview entirely missed the point and would have been happy to chat to any lorry driver on the phone while they were driving.....then condemn them in another programme.
Pat
|
>> >> would say it's relevant to the extent that a higher standard might fairly be
>> expected from someone who does the thing for a living.<<
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> If it's unsafe it's unsafe, if it's illegal it's illegal, if it's a matter of
>> common sense to decide not to do talk on a phone while driving then surely
>> we can expect anyone who holds a driving licence to respect those things.
>>
>> Surely the roads would be safer if we ALL drove to the highest standard and
>> it's certainly no excuse to claim you are a 'non' professional driver.
>>
>> For what it's worth (since it seems I need to explain), is that the person
>> who called me wanting an interview entirely missed the point and would have been happy
>> to chat to any lorry driver on the phone while they were driving.....then condemn them
>> in another programme.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Agree with you on this one, Pat, especially in the light of the comment from the Chief Constable of Essex that he would like to see professional drivers sacked by their employers if convicted of using a mobile whilst driving. Incidentally, the new PCC for Essex supported him in a radio interview and went on to qualify the term professional driver as ANYONE engaged in driving as part of their job eg postman, milkman, etc. Therefore the CC and PCC of Essex, at least, feel that professional drivers should be held to have a greater responsibility.
See this for the article www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-23585694
|
>> Agree with you on this one, Pat, especially in the light of the comment from
>> the Chief Constable of Essex that he would like to see professional drivers sacked by
>> their employers if convicted of using a mobile whilst driving. Incidentally, the new PCC for
>> Essex supported him in a radio interview and went on to qualify the term professional
>> driver as ANYONE engaged in driving as part of their job eg postman, milkman, etc.
>> Therefore the CC and PCC of Essex, at least, feel that professional drivers should be
>> held to have a greater responsibility.
To be clear, the Chief Constable was talking about handheld phone use - including texting. He was saying that an occupational driver should be sacked for what is an an illegal act.
The man's still an idiot. Only a cosseted civil servant could propose loss of livelihood for something that attracts a fixed penalty and 3 points.
What does he want for burglary or assault, transportation? Or hanging in chains?
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 18 Aug 13 at 17:19
|
>> The man's still an idiot. Only a cosseted civil servant could propose loss of livelihood
>> for something that attracts a fixed penalty and 3 points.
>>
>> What does he want for burglary or assault, transportation? Or hanging in chains?
He's part right I think. Making/taking a phone call is one thing; safety margin eroded and worth £100/3 points. Multiple offences required for loss of job*.
Texting or using twitter/facebook etc while driving OTOH should be 6 or even 9 points with a discretionary ban. Employers might well regard such an event as gross misconduct and dismiss.
*Driving instructors have to be a 'fit and proper person' and the licencing authorities take convictions into account when accrediting and ADI. Where an instructor is disbarred there's a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. It's amazing how many current or potential instructors think it worth appealing when they're on multiple points including two 'use of mobile' FPN offences.
|
>> He's part right I think. Making/taking a phone call is one thing; safety margin eroded
>> and worth £100/3 points. Multiple offences required for loss of job*.
>>
>> Texting or using twitter/facebook etc while driving OTOH should be 6 or even 9 points
>> with a discretionary ban. Employers might well regard such an event as gross misconduct and
>> dismiss.
>
Ok so every case where the police see someone using a phone now has to be forensically investigated to prove what phone functions were being used?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 18 Aug 13 at 18:00
|
>>especially in the light of the comment from
>> the Chief Constable of Essex that he would like to see professional drivers sacked by
>> their employers if convicted of using a mobile whilst driving.
Would this be the same employers who ought to be providing the right equipment for their staff to use the phone whilst driving..but often don't....and still expect their staff to be in contact?
|
|
Just more rules/laws which cannot be enforced. Just look at the number of people you see, on a daily basis, using handheld phones. No enforcement there so how will lane hoggers and tail gaters be caught and penalised?
|
Change the law so that first offence = car confiscated and sold... no matter who owns it.
After the first fuss, suddenly much more law abiding and company car drivers would be a shining example to all of how to drive.
Ain't going to happen.. MPs would be caught. (Huhne, Alan Clark to name but two)
Last edited by: madf on Tue 13 Aug 13 at 18:26
|
|
Don't worry someone will be developing a money making camera system as we speak.
|
|
German autobahn cameras can record tail-gating, I understand
|
|
I had a vaguely novel idea re drug dealers. Basically, everybody convicted of dealing, each month, would be given a lucky number. They would all be sentenced but one number would be drawn each month and the holder would get 30 years without parole. That'll sharpen them up!
|
>> I had a vaguely novel idea re drug dealers. Basically, everybody convicted of dealing, each
>> month, would be given a lucky number. They would all be sentenced but one number
>> would be drawn each month and the holder would get 30 years without parole. That'll
>> sharpen them up!
>>
30 years at say £1,500. P.W. = £2,340,000.00............That's Two Million and a bit without inflation.
A .22 round costs somewhat less and is one effective deterrent. Of course the Judiciary cannot be trusted, nor can the Police so that is never going to happen. Happy days for those that pay tax and play the game......sigh...
|
>> A .22 round costs somewhat less and is one effective deterrent.
Are you suggesting that 'drug dealers' should be assassinated by righteous citizens or the police and judiciary MD? That would indeed be a novel approach in a country that makes rather a to-do about the rule of law.
And why just a piddling .22 as the murder weapon? What's wrong with a decent calibre, .45 or .44 magnum, or even an explosive round? Show a bit of respect, dammit.
(Tchah!)
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 16 Aug 13 at 23:47
|
|
Responding to madf: Think AC (unless another of the same name exists) has moved on from earthly concerns, not that he would have cared about a piffling fine in his stable of fast transport:)
Last edited by: NIL on Tue 13 Aug 13 at 20:09
|
>> Responding to madf: Think AC (unless another of the same name exists) has moved on
>> from earthly concerns, not that he would have cared about a piffling fine in his
>> stable of fast transport:)
Took a minute to decode AC correctly there.
If Armel Coussine has shuffled off it's hot news; he was posting happily earlier today!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 13 Aug 13 at 20:28
|
|
Was thinking of the castle-owning AC. Could be both I suppose...
|
>> Just more rules/laws which cannot be enforced. Just look at the number of people you
>> see, on a daily basis, using handheld phones. No enforcement there so how will lane
>> hoggers and tail gaters be caught and penalised?
>>
around 120,000 FPNs. Issued for using hand held mobile phones in 2011 and no doubt more in 2012.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 13 Aug 13 at 19:22
|
>> around 120,000 FPNs. Issued for using hand held mobile phones in 2011 and no doubt
>> more in 2012.
>>
And for an offence committed 120,000 times a day in London alone the FPN's are a drop in the ocean.
Chance of being caught next to nil.
|
|
How do you know it's 120,000 times a day in London?
|
>> How do you know it's 120,000 times a day in London?
A rough extrapolation from daily observations over a 3 mile bike commute from Euston to Westminster. It might be 50,000 or 250,000 but any way you look the law is ignored big time.
|
"but any way you look the law is ignored big time."
I didn't say it wasn't. I was questioning Meldrew's assertion that the law is not enforced when clearly it is.
|
|
I should not have said "Not enforced". I should have said not obviously/rarely/weakly enforced!
|
>> >> How do you know it's 120,000 times a day in London?
>>
>> A rough extrapolation from daily observations over a 3 mile bike commute from Euston to
>> Westminster. It might be 50,000 or 250,000 but any way you look the law is
>> ignored big time.
Every time I drive, I see people holding phones. I drive more or less daily and I guess I spot 10 an hour. (and thats not really looking for them so no idea how many I miss) Its the most widely flouted law on the road after speeding.
|
>> >> How do you know it's 120,000 times a day in London?
>>
>> A rough extrapolation from daily observations over a 3 mile bike commute from Euston to
>> Westminster. It might be 50,000 or 250,000 but any way you look the law is
>> ignored big time.
>>
Sounds like a bit of a leap but fair enough, I'm not in that neck of woods. Today as I wasn't driving, I had a nosey at how many people were on the phone over a 55 mile commute. I didn't see one. You must see a huge amount everyday?
|
>> how many people were on the phone over a 55 mile commute. I didn't see one
In my experience it's far more prevalent during working hours - those travelling to/from the office tend not to make as many calls on the move. I only had a quick 150-mile round trip this morning and saw at least half-a-dozen handheld phone users whose driving stood out as particularly poor.
|
|
in fairness my commute times aren't "normal" times, still can't say I see to many.
|
|
Perhaps Sooty one...............one should be more aware of the folk that are holding their phone in their lap primarily for the purpose of texting and or updating their mindless Two-Facebook accounts. Mainly young girls from my experience.
|
>> no doubt
>> more in 2012.
Hmmm, wouldn't wager much on that bet given the falling number of coppers.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 13 Aug 13 at 22:43
|
>> >> no doubt
>> >> more in 2012.
>>
>> Hmmm, wouldn't wager much on that bet given the falling number of coppers.
>>
The BBC were reporting this evening that the traffic police based in Aberdeen are to be tripled, (from 5 to 15).
tinyurl.com/pyzsf98
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 14 Aug 13 at 22:10
|
|
Tripled and giving the figures is a lot more honest than the usual blah about "Police assets have risen 300% this year"
|
>> Just more rules/laws which cannot be enforced. Just look at the number of people you
>> see, on a daily basis, using handheld phones. No enforcement there so how will lane
>> hoggers and tail gaters be caught and penalised?
>>
Cameras, as said above, already done in Germany. Too good a money making opportunity to miss.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 17 Aug 13 at 16:57
|
>> Just come across this new Daily Mail on-line story:
>> Interested in others' viewpoints.
There were quite a few made a couple of months ago when this first got a mention.
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=14175
.
|
120,000 people doing it a day, 120,000 caught a year. Doesn't seem a bad success rate to me.
A 1:364 chance of getting caught. I'd buy a lottery ticket at those odds.
Flawed maths though.
|
|
Interesting about the tailgating since presumably there will have to be a speed below which tailgating is acceptable. For example in a slow moving queue at 20mph, am I expected to maintain a big distance?
|
>> Interesting about the tailgating since presumably there will have to be a speed below which
>> tailgating is acceptable. For example in a slow moving queue at 20mph, am I expected
>> to maintain a big distance?
There's an appropriate distance for every speed. It's generally about three times what most people leave.
|
>> There's an appropriate distance for every speed. It's generally about three times what most people leave.>>
The two second gap...?
|
>> >> There's an appropriate distance for every speed. It's generally about three times what most
>> people leave.>>
>>
>> The two second gap...?
I'd go with that. It also happens to be just about big enough to accommodate an overtaker, so far les anti social than tailgating a slow moving car or lorry while holding up traffic behind.
|
>>>> The two second gap...?
>> I'd go with that. It also happens to be just about big enough to accommodate an overtaker....
and turn you into a tailgater when they shoehorn themselves in front of you and slow down, which so many seem to do.
Perhaps it's just me, and they don't like being behind a ŠKODA...
|
Both the offences are very subjective and opinion based. A prosecution for 'careless driving' in respect of a collision had to be determined by a court based on the facts presented that is why it was never made a Fixed Penalty Offence. Details are sketchy but could a FPT be issued for pulling out at a junction and causing a collision? That falls into the remit of 'careless driving'.
There is no legislation directly linked to how far we should be travelling from the vehicle infront other than guidance in the Highway Code. These figures far exceed the capabilities of vehicle braking abilities and then you throw in the reaction times of the driver and road/weather conditions.
As far as 'lane hogging' goes again this can be subjective. If traffic is light and you are not causing obstuction to any other traffic what does it matter which lane you cruise in? However if faster vehicles are having to change lane because you are stuck rigidly in lane 2 (motorway) with nothing in lane 1 then perhaps this shows a a degree of carelessness. So you are travelling at 70 mph in lane 3 and a queue is forming behind you who are travelling over the legal limit. Surely they are equally committing an offence? How often have you been travelling along, judged the gaps and thought I will just crack another couple off before moving back in to a more suitable gap. How big does that gap have to be before it is considered reasonable to expect a vehicle to move into it?
My opinion? Washy legilation.
|
>> Both the offences are very subjective and opinion based.
>> My opinion? Washy legilation.
>>
FC,
What do you think of the anomaly of Airwave radios (police radios)...in that hand held radios are not part of the legislation banning mobile phone usage...but...the Airwave ones have a telephone capability...so they are in effect mobile phones as well?
|
Interesting point WP and one that has caused some discussion.
The initial opinion was that whilst being used as a 'two way radio' it was exempt but used as a phone it would fall within the regulations. But having done some research two way radios are defined as those within particular frequencies which I believe Airwave does not fall. It would therefore not be exempt.
I found this snipet on the Police Specials (cough) site lifted from the DoT:
"If a device is a dual or multi-purpose device that can be used both as a mobile phone and a 2-way radio, the use of the device while driving is prohibited whether the device is being used as a 2-way radio or as a mobile phone".
It could be argued that a set fixed onto body armour is some for of 'hands free' but then you still have to push to talk but there again with a proper vehicle 'hands free' kit or car set you still have to manually activate the PTT.
I must admit that it is so convenient to use the set which is mounted just under your chin but the handset is only rated at 1/2watt output whereas the vehicle set is rated at 4 watt so reception/transmission quality can be impaired and for those the non believers in the safety of the equipment radio waves are bouncing around in a tin can. Someone did remark I had a healthy glow :)
So there does not seem to be a definitive answer until someone comes a cropper. Best practice and from a public perception point of view would be to use the car set
Bottom line is that there is no definitive answer that I am aware of.
|
>> Bottom line is that there is no definitive answer that I am aware of.
But look. chaps, are you really going to turn your two way radios off just because technically they count as mobile phones as well?
God I do hope not.
|
|
Makes for a quiet shift AC.
|
>> But look. chaps, are you really going to turn your two way radios off just
>> because technically they count as mobile phones as well?
>>
>> God I do hope not.
Trouble is AC, not everyone thinks like you FC or I.
I noticed this about 15 months before I left and made some discrete enquiries...but soon realised everyone was fudging it and sweeping it under the carpet..I chose not to force the issue in the hope that the powers that be had already considered it and I was missing a point somewhere...trouble is I didn't convince myself.
The problem will come when some poor sod has an accident or some interfering type complains.....and it's attributed to his/her radio usage on a device that isn't exempt.
|
>>and turn you into a tailgater when they shoehorn themselves in front of you
Doesn't happen to me very often; but he who is behind controls the gap - if somebody wants to get by, I let them and increase the distance if necessary.
But is there anybody who likes to knock on, who hasn't been stymied for miles on end when there are only two or three vehicles ahead, with no gaps in between?
I know what you mean about the car. I used my daughter's Ka quite a lot, that seemed to have an inflammatory effect on some people, as does the boss's Civic to a lesser extent.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 17 Aug 13 at 13:48
|
Our Grand Scenic seems to annoy some drivers, once got overtaken three times by the same BMW on the M57, cruise control kept me at the same speed the entire time they just didn't like being passed by a french people carrier.
When I had to drive at school drop off/pick up times Ka's were often seen driven very nervously and struggling to go through quite large gaps, as if the drivers had chosen small cars to compensate for poor spacial awareness.
|
|
The Insignia shows the distance (in time) to the car in front. 2 seconds is huge, and the space just fills up with other cars. Have to change the following distance setting from "Medium" to "Audi" and even with a 1.2 second gap it appears unusually generous.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Sat 17 Aug 13 at 15:02
|
>> Perhaps it's just me, and they don't like being behind a ŠKODA...
>>
Or a KIA.
|
Perhaps because it was a Friday in the summer holidays but I didn't notice any change in drivers' behaviour, or indeed any police presence, on the M4. Still the usual nose-to-tail procession in lane 3, similar in 2, and big gaps on the left that would have allowed the traffic to flow faster if drivers had pulled in after overtaking.
I think it will take a massive, highly visible enforcement effort to make the slightest difference to people's behaviour, and I can't see that happening. What I can foresee is a new kind of post appearing here from a newly-registered member, asking what technicalities might get him off his FPN. Several of us will tell him to suck it up and we'll never hear from him again.
|
>> I think it will take a massive, highly visible enforcement effort to make the slightest
>> difference to people's behaviour, and I can't see that happening.>>
I can't either, I would think it is easy enough to put a camera on a motorway bridge and issue FPNs by the thousand, but the public outcry, political fallout, and PR disaster, makes it very unlikely.
|
|
If "speed bumps" didn't already exist I'd probably say the same thing ON. Monstrous idea that people have come to accept as normal.
|
>> If "speed bumps" didn't already exist I'd probably say the same thing ON. Monstrous idea
>> that people have come to accept as normal.
>>
Don't get me started on that one. We have a loony left car hating council who do everything in their power to disrupt traffic flow.
|
|
SKAIK there is not yet, any camera or camera combination in UK, that can detect tailgating or lane misuse.
|
>> SKAIK there is not yet, any camera or camera combination in UK, that can detect
>> tailgating or lane misuse.
>>
Even my digital point and shoot camera can take a photo of a car with a vacant lane alongside it, and the resolution would be good enough to read the registration plate. Tailgating would be more difficult for reading the plate.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 19 Aug 13 at 09:41
|
Isn't all this highly misleading. There are no new careless driving offences. The offence of careless driving is the same as it always was. The only thing that has changed is the ability of the police to issue FPNs.
The problem is that many of the offences mentioned are not clear cut. They basically come down to the opinion of a police officer.
Because of the lack of proof i suspect that a lot of people will refuse a FPN and decide on a court hearing which somewhat ironically could lead to an overall increase in court cases rather than the reduction in caseload that was partly behind this move.
|
Yesterday it seemed to me as if lane 1 was getting more use than previous on M42, M6 toll, and M6 up to J17 and back.
Whether or not that's general, or just my imagination, is a moot point.
|
>> Yesterday it seemed to me as if lane 1 was getting more use than previous
>> on M42, M6 toll, and M6 up to J17 and back.
>>
>> Whether or not that's general, or just my imagination, is a moot point.
>>
Whatever it was I don't think it will last long.
|
|
Why having courts involved? If you are stopped by the police and they have a friendly word about what you are doing wrong.That is the way to go in my opinion.
|
|
What standard of driver training will a police officer, (or eventually a PCSO or Highways Agency womble) have to have to enforce driving standards?
|
|
The more you look into it the more its' unlikely to be inforced.Problaby its' all about the money.
|
>>
>>
>> The two second gap...?
>>
That's 44 feet at 15 mph.
|
>> That's 44 feet at 15 mph.
>>
Think of it as 1 second to realise the car in front is braking then 1 second allowance for him having better brakes / more grip than you.
Maybe not so vital at 15 mph but 2 seconds makes for safer motorway driving at say 70 mph, especially in the wet.
|
|
With the fine for speeding going up to £100 I'll just have to make sure I don't get caught.
|
>> I'll just have to make sure I don't get caught.
>>
That's what we're all trying to do
|
New "careless driving" offences fines - Alanovich
