Today I lost count of how many drivers were using mobile phones whilst driving , including an Artic that went straight across the roundabout in front of me whilst he was on the phone! I was already a complete cars lenght over the lines and had to litterally stop hard ! then i nearly had a sprinter van drive in teh side on a dual carrige way AGAIN on the phone.
Why not make it £500 fine and 6 points minimum please
|
|
The number of drivers who still use a mobile phone whilst on the move is unbelievable - they seem to think they will not be caught, but hardly surprising with fewer traffic patrols these days.
|
Getting phone users in town would be a job for a CPSO on a push bike. Helemet camera to record the evidence. Just needs the law changing to give them the necessary powers.
Double points for texters.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 6 May 11 at 19:19
|
We managed reasonably alright until now. The only thing to have changed is some toothless law was introduced. I'm not saying the numpty failing to pay attention is right in any way, shape or form, but it is possible to use one without driving like a numpty.
I guess my point is it's common to hear people complain "oh they were on a mobile", ok that's fair enough, but you've missed out the important detail here, were they driving like a numpty or not? If not, who really cares.
My reason for taking this stance is simply i hear panic monkeys twittering about banning hands free sets in addition to phones and I use my hands free regularly and would like to continue!
Target the problem (inattention) not the symptom.
Last edited by: Skoda on Fri 6 May 11 at 19:51
|
|
Well they tell us that driving with a mobile clamped to your ear is a dangerous as drunk driving. So why not make the penalty the same?
|
>>Well they tell us that driving with a mobile clamped to your ear is a dangerous as drunk driving. So why not make the penalty the same?>>
Four times more dangerous was my understanding - but I could be wrong.
|
>> My reason for taking this stance is simply i hear panic monkeys twittering about banning
>> hands free sets in addition to phones and I use my hands free regularly and
>> would like to continue!
>>
>> Target the problem (inattention) not the symptom.
>>
It has been proven (i.e. by repeat independent peer reviewed scientific tests) that you are wrong in your belief.
Strayer, Drews et al are just one group.
"“inattention blindness,” in which motorists look directly at road conditions but don’t really see them because they are distracted by a cell phone conversation. And such drivers aren’t aware they are impaired."
Others can be found on t'inernet.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11760132
Go and take a test at a transport research lab if you need to be convinced.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 6 May 11 at 20:15
|
>> And such drivers aren’t aware they are impaired
Hard to argue with that one then!
The miles of accident free, out of everyone's way conversations that take place on the motorway every day with a handset glued to the driver's ear suggest it is possible to do it just fine.
|
>> The miles of accident free, out of everyone's way conversations that take place on the
>> motorway every day with a handset glued to the driver's ear suggest it is possible
>> to do it just fine.
>>
Sigh. I blame the British education system's failure to teach numeracy.
|
I have used mobile phones in cars since about 83.
Never had a crash or incident while using a phone, all the ones I have had have been when not using a phone. Ergo not using a phone is dangerous,
|
Good to see that there are some on here who can understand facts and figures.
I'll give you a thumbs up for that.
|
This is a report in the Economist just last month - Apr 14th 2011 :
www.economist.com/node/18561075?story_id=18561075
"The human brain has to work harder to process language and communication with somebody who is not physically present. (Conversation with passengers is much less distracting, apparently because those passengers are also aware of the traffic situation and moderate their conversation.) A study by Carnegie Mellon University using brain imaging found that merely listening to somebody speak on the phone led to a 37% decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, where spatial tasks are processed. This suggests that hands-free use of mobile phones cannot help much. Such distractions, according to one study, make drivers more collision-prone than having a blood-alcohol level of .08%, the legal limit in America. It appears to raise the risk of an accident by four times. Texting multiplies the risk by several times again."
|
>> It appears to raise the risk of an accident by four times
And looking the other way all but guarantees a collision at some point.
And driving is more dangerous than walking.
And... where do you stop? It's all a bit devoid of personal resposibility. Smacks of "i need someone to tell me what's acceptable".
If you cause an accident, you get the book thrown at you. If you don't cause an accident, crack on. You know your own limits. You know if you mis judge those limits then there are consequences.
No interfering required.
|
>> No interfering required.
>>
Good for you.
Anarchy rules.
Join Charlie Gilmour on the rampage on the streets of London..
|
>> Join Charlie Gilmour on the rampage on the streets of London..
I'd rather just kind of get on with my life, and let you get on with yours... promise i wont impose any restrictions on you :-) I'll even be respectful and neighbourly! We'll all just mingle along nicely.
|
Until you kill one of my kids crashing into them while texting/drinking/stoned/unlicensed.
Then no amount of 'throwing the book at you' will make me feel better.
In fact why are there any laws? Everyone is kind and considerate and looks out for his/her fellow citizens so surely they're not necessary.
|
>> Until you kill one of my kids crashing into them while texting/drinking/stoned/unlicensed.
Why would i do that? I'd ruin my own life too. I've no interest in killing anyone.
>> In fact why are there any laws?
It's like a big pendulum, only this c4p pendulum magically orbs from one extreme to the other, missing out the happy middle. We should get it fixed!
|
Make it harsher. Treat the phones like uninsured cars and crush them. That will concentrate the minds of people who have just taken out a £25 x 24 month contract on a new i phone!
The law is there but the enforcement isn't and isn't likely to be in the near future.
|
Holding a phone and driving is wrong. But even using one hands free can also be distracting.
Lets ignore the distraction of the call for a minute. I can't see why people won't buy either a car kit or at least a handsfree Bluetooth type car phone system. They're hardly expensive. But you see people driving expensive cars holding a phone - you'd think if you can afford a £40k+ car you can afford a phone kit for the car.
|
|
It seems tho, by general observation, that its being ignored more and more frequently.
|
People are fined 4 quid a pack for smoking, arguably the most dangerous avoidable habit there is... and they still do it in their millions.
Mobile phones while driving are small beer.
|
|
£4 a pack may, or may not, cover the cost of any NHS treatment but many smokers die early and don't collect their State Retirement pension so the Excequer wins overall and then has money to spend on ill thought thru amd unpopular AV schemes inter alia!
|
>> £4 a pack may, or may not, cover the cost of any NHS treatment but
>>
Smokers contribute 10 billion a year to the exchequer (before the current round of increases 50p a pack) which is way more than the wildely exaggerated cost of treatment to the health service.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Fri 6 May 11 at 21:14
|
And then that leads to yet more arguments.
Is driving while setting fire to something at your mouth dangerous?
What about loud music on the radio?
Or The Archers?
Or kids screaming in the car?
I don't disagree that using a mobie phone can distract you but instead of doing lab tests of phone vs no phone, do it phone vs screaming kids etc
|
Smokers more than pay for their health costs - they are altruistic beyond imagination.
The very fact I'd be paying £1500+ a year in fag tax to Westminster makes me wonder why anyone would consider it.
I'll just ignore the £3000+ I probably pay in road tax, fuel duty, VAT, IPT, etc every year driving.... ;-)
|
Another thing I now see often are drivers wearing in ear headphones listening to music whilst driving. Probably owners of iPhones. Is this legal?
You'd think buying a cheap wireless transmitter for the iPod and using the car stereo would give a better experience.
|
I still find it astonishing that you can set fire to some dried leaves and paper while you're driving; take the drug hit; and be completely legal.
Someone lobbed their cigarette butt onto the road while waiting at traffic lights the other day as I was walking past. Picked up the end and chucked it back through their open window into the passenger footwell.
They seemed a touch distracted after that - presumably, of course, if they dropped their lit cigarette while driving they would burn to death in a calm and considered way while safely pulling up at the side of the road.
When the revolution comes etc...
|
That happened to a neighbour across the road from me on Bank Holiday Monday.
Family trip to Burntisland, dropped a fag end into the footwell where the scrunched up kitchen roll from their picnic had been dropped!
Onto the hard shoulder and a bottle of water had to be emptied over it!
|
>>
>>
>> Someone lobbed their cigarette butt onto the road while waiting at traffic lights the other
>> day as I was walking past. Picked up the end and chucked it back through
>> their open window into the passenger footwell.
>>
I never throw cigarette ends into the road, not only is it dangerous to other road users it causes unsightly littering. I always make sure I lob the butt into a field where it will bio-degrade without being an eysore, after of course first making sure there is no-one about that may get hit.
I did just that the other day driving down a country lane, my well practiced technique being good enough to easily clear the hedge. Couldn't do it on the return journey though as the field seemed to be full of firemen. Must have been on some sort of training exercise.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Fri 6 May 11 at 22:13
|
|
you live out Bracknell way per chance RR?
|
I always find if I see one driver breaking one law, I can spot about 5 other laws they have broken with a minute. Stuff like going through on amber on purpose, speeding, cutting people up etc.
I wouldn't want to even try driving with a mobile phone.
|
>> I always find if I see one driver breaking one law, I can spot about
>> 5 other laws they have broken with a minute. Stuff like going through on amber
>> on purpose,
That's not against the law.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 6 May 11 at 22:26
|
|
People have been done and booked for going through amber, if it has been proven they had plenty of time to stop.
|
|
No they haven't, its not an offence.
|
"its not an offence.'
I think you are wrong there..
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002
"the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;'
It follow therefore that if you could safely stop at an amber and proceed through the lights you are committing an offence in exactly the same way as going through a red.
Of course it would take a policeman to spot you and there would inevitably be an argument as to whether it was safe to stop. Cameras only detect you passing the line at red
|
Is there an offence of failing to stop at an amber light? I don't think there is.
There is one for failing to stop at a red light.
I know of no-one who has been booked for failing to stop at an amber light. There cant be an offence for "its ok to do it sometimes, but not others"
|
|
Read the law . It is an offense.
|
|
The offence is failing to comply with a traffic signal.
|
But you are allowed NOT TO, its not an offense.
Do you know of anyone who has been done for it?
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 6 May 11 at 23:13
|
You are allowed not to only if it unsafe to do - Read the law. Whether I know anyone who has been so charged is not really relevant. I suspect few have but its still against the law.
From the Motor Lawyers site
"I went through on amber. There was a Police Officer who stopped me and has alleged I went through on red, so it is my word against his. Can I fight the allegation?
You can dispute the allegation, but the mere fact that the lights were not red, does not provide you with a defence. If you crossed on amber, you have still committed the offence, unless you can show that it was unsafe to stop. If the Police Officer can convince the Court that there was no reason why you should not have been able to stop on amber, you could be convicted. The fact that it is his word against yours does not prevent a prosecution, although clearly, the outcome will depend heavily on each party's version of events/credibility."
www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/traffic_lights.htm
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 6 May 11 at 23:23
|
I have read the law, and the highway code.
To "convey" is not the same as "means the same"
Again, I ask you, do you know of anyone who has been done for failing to stop at an amber light?
There is no legal definition of "safe to do so" so legally you can
Edit, if you cause an accident, or nearly cause an accident clearly it wasnt, and you could be. Nicked that is.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 6 May 11 at 23:32
|
You are grasping at straws Zero.
Convey means carries.
You say it is not an offence.
I have shown you the law.
I have shown you the view of a lawyers web site.
You still cannot accept that you are wrong. Do I know anybody who has been charged,you ask. No I don't and I don't expect many have. It would highly unusual to be charged with the offence for reasons I have already stated, but that is neither here nor there.
It is an offence.
|
I say, where you are allowed to do something, it cant be an offence.
We will have to agree to differ.
|
|
I agree with Z. Legally it might be an issue but in the real world you're going to be okay. In practice it would be difficult to enforce this therefore might as well not be illegal.
|
>> I agree with Z. Legally it might be an issue but in the real world
>> you're going to be okay. In practice it would be difficult to enforce this therefore
>> might as well not be illegal.
>>
Plenty of cases on t'internet of people who have been done for going through amber.
Highway code says:
"AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident "
|
>> I say, where you are allowed to do something, it cant be an offence.
It is an offence but one for there is a defence of being unable to safely comply. Crossing a red is an absolute offence (except perhaps under the direction of a police officer in uniform).
Those of us willing to cross the stop line for an ambulance or fire appliance would have to rely on the prosecutor exercising discretion not to proceed. Or plead guilty and seek an absolute discharge.
|
Yes - Me - in 1972 and it still rankles , what do the carload of coppers who were behind me know anyway..........
My one and only conviction in over 40 years of motoring .
|
That was referring to failing to comply with a traffic signal .....
and in response to Zeros as usual talking load of old cobblers post.........
|
|
Zero will be along in a minute to admit he was wrong.
|
to admit he was wrong........
:0)
|
|
Having not bought any cigarettes for years I was staggered to see the price on a hotel vending machine the other day - £9 a packet. Seems a very expensive way to kill yourself but I guess it means I pay less tax
|
I was going to comment on this post but 46 replies later rtj has unintentionally given the answer to the OP here
>>Legally it might be an issue but in the real world you're going to be okay. In practise it would be difficult to enforce this therefore might as well not be illegal<<
I find it sad that there can never be a discussion on the ILLEGAL use of phone, which should be enforced, without it turning to whether the use of hands free phones should be banned and then inevitably smoking has to be slated.
Talking on a hands free phone is no different to talking to a passenger so maybe we should ban them as well.
Smoking to a smoker, is less distracting than picking your nose seems to be to most non smoking, bored drivers.
Enforce the existing law instead of calling for more.
Pat
|
>>>Talking on a hands free phone is no different to talking to a passenger so maybe we should ban them as well.<<<
pda -which bit of the following did you not understand?
www.economist.com/node/18561075?story_id=18561075
"The human brain has to work harder to process language and communication with somebody who is not physically present. (Conversation with passengers is much less distracting, apparently because those passengers are also aware of the traffic situation and moderate their conversation.) A study by Carnegie Mellon University using brain imaging found that merely listening to somebody speak on the phone led to a 37% decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, where spatial tasks are processed. This suggests that hands-free use of mobile phones cannot help much. Such distractions, according to one study, make drivers more collision-prone than having a blood-alcohol level of .08%, the legal limit in America. It appears to raise the risk of an accident by four times. Texting multiplies the risk by several times again."
Last edited by: pmh on Sat 7 May 11 at 07:04
|
I understand it perfectly thank you.
IMHO, it's a load of alarmist ****
Pat
|
>> >>>Talking on a hands free phone is no different to talking to a passenger so
>> maybe we should ban them as well.<<<
>>
>> pda -which bit of the following did you not understand?
Why do you need to be so offensive?
Maybe Pat just disagrees. As do I actually; it's more complicated that that. There's a world of difference between a simple exchange of information on a hands-free phone, such as what time you will arrive, and discussing complicated contract terms with a person present which I have declined to do while driving.
It always comes down to how much care the individual driver takes, whether they are listening to the wireless, smoking, trying to keep their children under control, worrying about their poorly mother, using a mobile, or whatever. And I don't have to condone mobile phone use while driving to believe that.
Many people drive carelessly regardless (every habitual tailgater for a start).
I have answered a hand held while driving - I'm not an anarchist, but I am capable of making a judgement as to whether it is dangerous while crawling along the A40 at 5-10mph in a traffic jam. Anybody who ever breaks a speed limit when it is safe to do so is just as guilty.
FWIW, I normally use a voice controlled hands free which removes any possibility of being ticketed, though the protracted conversation with the machine probably increases the distraction.
I do find it puzzling that so many WVM and delivery drivers clearly spend a great deal of their time with phone clapped to lug, if only because it's a matter of when, not if, they are caught.
|
>> pda -which bit of the following did you not understand?
We understood it perfectly
>>Such distractions, according
>> to one study,
Someone has postulated guesswork, no proof.
>> legal limit in America. It appears to raise the risk of an accident by four
>> times.
It appears? = we don't know so we guessed again
|
|
Most people, when using a phone – whether mobile or landline – subconsciously visualise the person to whom they are talking and in my opinion that is the distraction that makes the use of a phone (hand held or remote) whilst driving so dangerous. I also consider unthinking passengers to be a distraction as well (those who rabbit on without regard to traffic conditions) and, arguably, loud music to be the biggest danger of all.
|
Car salesmen know when drivers are at their most distracted, and will reserve the most important questions on a test drive for such times (eg. when turning right).
Driving along a straight, empty motorway gives you loads of reserve brain power to manage to safely speak on a 'phone.
Trying to do the same while dodging through traffic or nipping into spaces is quite different.
The problem on a 'phone is many people will try to keep a conversation going like a normal face-to-face one, whereas talking to the guy sitting next to you can comfortably be paused for 15-20 seconds while you negotiate a tricky manouvre.
Like excessive speed - using a 'phone is sometimes dangerous, and sometimes not.
Or a seatbelt - most of the time conveys zero benefit, occasionally conveys massive benefits, and very very rarely may lead to your demise by not allowing you to be flung 'safely' out of a crashing vehicle that later explodes/hits a tree.
Difficult to legislate for variables but when the safety of others can be put at risk I'd rank using a phone a greater priority than wearing a seatbelt (as would the law as one offence is endorsable and one isn't).
|
>>Difficult to legislate for variables but when the safety of others can be put at risk I'd rank using a phone a greater priority than wearing a seatbelt (as would the law as one offence is endorsable and one isn't). >>
Mad. Drivers using a mobile phone are up to four times MORE likely to have an accident - in fact, IIRC, a higher risk than if they have had a drink.
PS
See:
www.is4profit.com/business-advice/it-telecoms/mobile-phones-driving.html
Last edited by: Stuartli on Sat 7 May 11 at 11:30
|
"Driving along a straight, empty motorway gives you loads of reserve brain power to manage to safely speak on a 'phone.
Trying to do the same while dodging through traffic or nipping into spaces is quite different."
I absolutely agree. Much driving takes very little concentration or thought at all. If my brain had a rev counter for concentration, I might only red-line it two or three times a day, maybe while turning the car around in the school car park or pulling out of a junction into a busy road. Most of the time it would be ticking over.
I've said it before. I see people driving while phoning everywhere I look, every single day. Can't remember when I last witnessed an accident.
Last edited by: BiggerBadderDave on Sat 7 May 11 at 13:42
|
>> I've said it before. I see people driving while phoning everywhere I look, every single day.
>> Can't remember when I last witnessed an accident.
But you can be almost certain that when a car starts suddenly to go significantly slower than it was - for no obvious reason outside the car - and is driven a bit more erratically, that the driver is on the phone. (or having ear bent by passenger(s)).
|
>> Most people, when using a phone – whether mobile or landline – subconsciously visualise the person to whom they are talking and in my opinion that is the distraction that
makes the use of a phone (hand held or remote) whilst driving so dangerous.
>>
Now we know who's been dialing the 0900 numbers ;-)
|
>> Someone has postulated guesswork, no proof.
>>
>>
>>
have a google for "supertaskers utah" (without the quotes, or you get this posting), and read the PDF at the top of the results.
It seems most can't drive and talk on the phone without "impairment" .
Fewer than 3% of their study sample of 200 people can.
How long to wait for a post to say it's because they are American?
Last edited by: AnotherJohnH on Sat 7 May 11 at 11:22
|
As I indicated above, I have used phones in cars extensively since their inception. As a person doing the driving, I control the conversation. A terse, "wait a moment" while you carry out a manoeuvre, or a "sorry I can't consider that I am driving", or "ring me back in 5 minutes when I am on the motorway" The other party has to accept the nature of the call and the driver has to make that known.
In my own circumstances, a good hands free set up ( a bad one is worse than holding the phone) is no more distracting than a passenger talking to you, or Radio 5 live sports broadcast.
The most distracting thing I found was doing an Italian Language course on the CD. I ended up neither concentrating on the lesson or the driving.
|
Bout time the fine went up for using mobile phone - Stuartli
