www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24982173
Use of hands-free phones should be banned from vehicles as well as hand-held ones, road safety campaigners say.
The charity Brake also called for the penalty for calling or texting behind the wheel to be increased from £100 to somewhere between £500 and £1,000.
Brake's campaign is being supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers
Last edited by: henry k on Mon 18 Nov 13 at 00:55
|
Meanwhile... for those who can't bare to be away from facebook or twitter, have one of these and read and send posts WHILST driving!
|
|
What next? Forbidden to speak to passengers or listen to ICE? Another proposal to add to the list of things that can't be enforced, even if we had the manpower to do so, which we don't! Same as the fanfare of publicity re lane hogging and tailgating; has it reduced nad has anybody yet been convicted under the new regulations
|
|
As there is routine breath testing after a collision, (accidents are rare in my opinion), how about routine phone use checks with a similar penalty to drunk driving if proved?
|
And charities should be banned from political campaigning.
|
|
If a charity wants the law changed they have to lobby those who make the law.
|
I do think the penalty should be increased to £500-£1000.It might make people think more before doing it.
As for banning hands free what about built in bluetooth in the dash of the car?How can they stop you using that?
|
|
Brake probably think that Bluetooth is something to do with dentists.
|
They should ban children from cars. Mine are far more distracting than any phone conversation when they are fighting!
Agree, difficult to enforce unless during post-accident investigations. There are more important problems in the world than this!
|
>> Brake probably think that Bluetooth is something to do with dentists.
Or King Harald of the Danes.
|
>> I do think the penalty should be increased to £500-£1000.
Along with confiscation of the phone, followed by disposal / selling on (to help recuperate losses) if the fine isn't paid within a certain time.
Subsequent offenders should then be banned for driving for at least 3 months.
|
|
Confiscation and cancellation of the account would be a severe punishment....
|
>> If a charity wants the law changed they have to lobby those who make the
>> law.
And why should trying to change the law be construed as a charitable activity?
|
"And why should trying to change the law be construed as a charitable activity?"
Maybe it was set up by someone who's dear relative was killed by some twerp who was phoning and driving - and the movement subsequently funded by a number of sympathetic supporters?
|
>> "And why should trying to change the law be construed as a charitable activity?"
>>
>> Maybe it was set up by someone who's dear relative was killed by some twerp
>> who was phoning and driving - and the movement subsequently funded by a number of
>> sympathetic supporters?
Lobby away. But not subsidised by taxes.
The proposal itself is also one of the kind that brings the law into disrepute, and I suspect them of using it to highlight the widespread flagrant disregard of the existing law.
It's clear from the "evidence" they present that many don't even accept the current offence of using a hand held phone. And how is 500,000 people fined for handheld use evidential of a link to accidents caused by phones, let alone hands-free use?
Intuitively, the likelier menace is texting and internet surfing. Both of which are addressed by the 'hand held' law. Get that accepted first - every other tradesman's van I see has a driver with a phone clapped to his ear, which I can't understand at all - persuading those people to move to a hands free earpiece would be useful progress.
Meanwhile, Brake should have its charitable status revoked.
|
>> "And why should trying to change the law be construed as a charitable activity?"
>>
>> Maybe it was set up by someone who's dear relative was killed by some twerp
>> who was phoning and driving - and the movement subsequently funded by a number of
>> sympathetic supporters?
They are not a charity, they are an anti car group hijacked by the green party. Charity? they should be stripped of their status.
|
|
I imagine that the thinking is 1. They are a charity which is trying to reduce road accidents from all causes. 2. They perceive that mobile phone use is contributing to these accidents. 3. They think the law needs to be changed. 4. They consider that some approach to the makers of legislation is the way forward.
|
|
Plenty of charities campaign quite legitimately for a change of public policy or political direction. Not sure what put the hymenopteran in Manatee's hat about this one in particular.
|
>> And why should trying to change the law be construed as a charitable activity?
>>
As part of a wider objective?
Brake is a road safety charity. Why should trying to change the law not be part of it's charitable objective? Similarly the RSPCA might reasonably campaign for changes to law on intensive farming or dog ownership/licencing. On an area near my own heart why should the Legal Action Group not campaign for greater access to justice for those affected by petty decisions of government officials?
|
>> >> And why should trying to change the law be construed as a charitable activity?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> As part of a wider objective?
>>
>> Brake is a road safety charity. Why should trying to change the law not be
>> part of it's charitable objective? Similarly the RSPCA might reasonably campaign for changes to law
>> on intensive farming or dog ownership/licencing. On an area near my own heart why should
>> the Legal Action Group not campaign for greater access to justice for those affected by
>> petty decisions of government officials?
And that's why I will never give a bean to the RSPCA, which is notorious for political campaigning at vast expense using contrived and unsuccessful prosecutions.
There is nothing charitable about lobbying. We live in a democracy, we all have a vote and an MP. If you want more influence than that you shouldn't expect taxpayer subsidy.
|
>>
>> And that's why I will never give a bean to the RSPCA, which is notorious
>> for political campaigning at vast expense using contrived and unsuccessful prosecutions.
>>
>> There is nothing charitable about lobbying. We live in a democracy, we all have a
>> vote and an MP. If you want more influence than that you shouldn't expect taxpayer
>> subsidy.
>
An astonishingly narrow view of politics (small p) IMHO. There's much more to influencing government policy than marking a choice from one of three menus some day in May one year in five.
Do you really want to limit debate and choices to election time? All sorts of things crop up between those dates. The current issue with bikes and HGV's in London is a case in point. The Badger cull is another.
Should the CTC & LCC or the Badger Trust be prevented from pursuing this issue as part of a relevant charitable objective?
I'm not sure how you define lobbying but I don't think its the same thing as campaigning. Meeting your MP in the lobby is a logical extension of the vote+MP theory though. Even within your narrow definition it's surely reasonable for organisations, including those pursuing a charitable objective, seek to influence the menu Political parties lay before their electorate.
|
As far as I know, all Brake does is "campaign".
Charities having a 'position' on something is one thing, but subsidising pure lobbying is wrong, was my point.
You then gave the worst possible example in the RSPCA which throws huge amounts of money around to support its campaigns.
Sure, issues arise between elections. Also a crap argument in this case, as Brake basically bangs on about the same stuff year after year, ad nauseam.
I'd expect the CTC to have a position on the current apparent increases in cycle deaths, and to contribute sensibly to the argument. I'm not sure CTC should be a charity either.
Brake, a supposed road safety organisation, seems to have sod-all to say about it as it happens. They remind me of the Daily Mail, looking at their campaigns.
Can I start a charity to campaign for the removal of charitable status from mainly non-charitable organisations do you think?
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 20 Nov 13 at 20:33
|
"Can I start a charity to campaign for the removal of charitable status from mainly non-charitable organisations do you think?"
Heck of a job
fakecharities.org/
P
|
|
How is it ever going to be proven ? My understanding is it takes a serious accident to justify police checking phone records, so what do they do if they stop somebody who says 'not me, guv, I was talking to myself/singing along to the radio/swearing at that taxi driver'
|
How's that going to work? How do you tell the difference between a crap driver singing along to the iPod or a distracted driver on the phone?
And beyond all that, the current laws are unenforced (or ignored, same thing thing?) so changing it is hardly going to help. Drivers - especially commercial drivers - appear to be constantly on the phone. Young drivers are texting. A complete lack of traffic police allows this to take place.
Perhaps a better solution would be to change the current legislation so that instead of points and a fine in the unlikely event you're caught would be to introduce a 30 day ban. But how do you enforce that?
And while you're at it, you can't tell me that chatting on a hands free kit is more dangerous than setting fire to dried leaves wrapped in paper, inhaling a known mood-altering compound, and filling the interior with smoke? We're not banning that, are we?
Consider the panic that ensues when a smouldering cigarette is dropped (and I know this because I once lobbed one into the passenger footwell with the words "I think you dropped this" after the driver threw it onto the pavement).
|
It must be some 15 years or so ago that a dozen of us who drove for part of our jobs did a one-day advanced driver’s course. The first part of day was spent in the classroom and the first topic was ‘distractions’ – the instructors, who turned out to be very impressive drivers, put a high priority on it.
I recall that the discussion largely centred on things that were present outside the car and that we could do little about other than ignore. The group volunteered such items as nice cars, nice motorbikes, good-looking women, good-looking women with large busts, ugly women with large busts and so on. But, in this relaxed atmosphere, I don’t recall an emphasis on those potential distractions that a driver COULD do something about and I certainly don’t remember any mention of mobile phones; maybe this just hadn’t been identified as such an issue at that time.
Even then, the company had recognised the danger of using a mobile phone whilst driving and thoughtfully insisted on fitting all cars with hands-free kit. I have to say, even with that, I was not comfortable discussing anything more complicated than a call asking e.g. what time I was going to arrive at my destination. I understand that shortly after I retired, the edict came round that calls should not be taken/made whilst driving, even on the hands-free.
Flippant folk may scoff at the latest nannying – “huh, they’ll be banning car radios next” etc; but have they really thought about it? Listening to bland background music is one thing, but sometimes it’s possible to become absorbed by, say, a discussion that you find particularly interesting. I don’t read much, so my wife suggested trying recorded books on cassette tape whilst I was driving. My first attempt was ‘Moab is my Washpot’, a light autobiographical thing by Stephen Fry – pretty easy to digest. My next was Turlough by Brian Keenan – a different matter entirely; I couldn’t concentrate on both the tape and my driving, and so gave up on Turlough and the whole idea of recorded books.
A couple of years ago, a youngster was killed on the nearby A14 when he drove into the back of a parked lorry. Evidence submitted by the police showed that he had been changing a CD at the time of the crash.
The trouble is that, most of the time, we don’t recognise such commonplace activities as being distractions. We don’t think about it because we are too inexperienced, insufficiently trained, or too stupid to assess a particular activity – and, let’s face it, half of the drivers out there on the roads are below average intelligence.
|
I believe that police radios and even CB radio use with a handheld mic is perfectly legal.
Strange one that.
|
>> I believe that police radios and even CB radio use with a handheld mic is
>> perfectly legal.
>>
>> Strange one that.
>>
Fewer buttons to press to make/receive a call. Pick it up, press button, speak. Not quite the same with my smartphone. Pick it up, unlock screen, press "Phone" button, open contacts list, scroll down to required person, press screen on that person's entry, then press the green phone receiver to initiate a voice call.
Different kettle of herring entirely.
|
|
I can receive calls thru my Satnav without touching anything (auto-answer) which I do, and if I could be bothered to set it up, which I can't, I could make calls by voice command without touching anything too. The only distraction is then the conversation, it will take the STASI to make conversation illegal!
|
>> Not quite the same with my smartphone. Pick it up, unlock screen, press "Phone" button, open contacts list, scroll down to required person, press screen on that person's entry, then press the green phone receiver to initiate a voice call.
Press one button on my bluetooth (or the home button on the phone), then say "call Fred Bloggs" then the phone will either reply back "dialing Fred Bloggs" or I'll have a 10 minute argument with the phone because it wants to call anyone other than Fred Bloggs ;)
On the whole though, it does generally dial the correct person if you customise the address book in the phone with unique souding names and not similar sounding ones.
|
>> I believe that police radios and even CB radio use with a handheld mic is
>> perfectly legal.
>>
>> Strange one that.
Phone use was made subject to a specific offence so it was simple to prosecute by way of FPN. Use as above is not specifically illegal but could still be used to sustain a driving without due care type prosecution.
|
" half of the drivers out there on the roads are below average intelligence"
Not necessarily. If I was super super intelligent (blushes modestly) it would raise the average thereby leading to more than half of drivers being below average intelligence.
I'm not so sure about the first part, but after a bit of driving on Saturday and Sunday I strongly believe the second part !
|
|
Don't confuse "average" with "median".
|
"Don't confuse "average" with "median"."
I know, I should have just put 'roughly' in there to throw the pedants off the scent, but I assumed everyone on here was bright enough to see what I was getting at. It's a long time since I did O level statistics.
Of course, the very dimmest of the dim within the population (and I mean the dimmest!) won't be able pass the driving test, but maybe the very brightest won't be driving either if they employ chauffeurs.
|
I have a very simple hands free. If the phone is in it's holder on the dash and if the road is quiet then I just press any button then ' loudspeaker '. That's all you get with a Doro. Its enough for me. More often than not, the phone's in my coat pocket.
I don't rush to answer it whilst it's still ringing in pocket. I park up as soon as I can and see who's called. If it's a caller in my phonebook then I can ring back. If it's SWM and I'm 100 yds from home, I don't need to.
No way will I hold the phone up to my ear or text when mobile. I don't want the Feds nicking me and going over me motor with a fine tooth comb !
In respect of ICE, I've had some car radios with awful controls...positively dangerous IMO. I found a CD/radio at Halfords for the Vitara which actually came with a knob to turn instead of farty little buttons hidden away somewhere. I keep it on Classic FM so no fiddling about.
Ted
|
The Swedish government has so far resisted a ban on hand held phone use. The simple reason being they could find no evidence that a ban leads to reduced serious or fatal accidents. As a socialist government, I'm sure they tried very hard to find some sort of evidence to support yet more rules restricting the plebs, but they couldn't.
I believe they are also having a lot of trouble finding evidence that even using a hands free device reduces accidents. In fact, they seem to be struggling to find good, proper, reliable evidence that a total ban would make any difference.
Last edited by: Dave on Mon 18 Nov 13 at 15:49
|
The Swedish government and population are rational, unlike certain others. They don't make rules where they aren't needed.
We British, being a bit thick and generally given to hysteria, ban things at the drop of a hat and justify it with garbage about 'sending the wrong signals' or making society 'safer'.
|
"We British, being a bit thick"
You're right there, AC, that's why we need rules. Surely you've read the court reports where some brain-dead chav has been texting at the wheel and killed an unfortunate pedestrian.
Anyone who doesn't understand the importance of concentrating fully whilst driving is very probably part of the problem and, frankly, shouldn't be out there.
I know it's frustrating, but…….
|
...some brain-dead chav...
...or some over-keen junior exec. This isn't a problem we can blame on 'them' - it cuts across all strata of society.
|
"it cuts across all strata of society"
Indeed, it does.
|
>> "it cuts across all strata of society"
>>
>> Indeed, it does.
>>
A baseball cap on backwards in a Corsa or a German status symbol car do not bless you with common sense or lack of stupidity.
|
>> "it cuts across all strata of society"
>> Indeed, it does.
Yes. And the people who do it now will carry on doing it.
I wouldn't begin to be able to text at the wheel - takes me ages even concentrating, and I have to stare at the phone to do it at all - but I can certainly answer the phone as a rule. No one sane would do it or try to dial a number when their attention was really needed elsewhere. But I have a feeling some youngsters can text at the wheel, and usually get away with it.
Too much to drink combined with very strong emotion is the sort of thing that makes people get careless and get it badly wrong, not phone use as such.
|
>>But I have a feeling some youngsters can text at the wheel, and usually get away with it.
>>
My daughter who was a teenager many years ago, amongst her many skills, can text when using an old type phone without looking at the device, i.e. can text with the phone in her pocket.
She moans that her new phone does not have a key pad:-)
|
I make or take dozens of phone calls every day some of which are by default in the car. The hands free arrangement in my car is excellent with all convenience features including voice command, caller display on the dash, keypad dial facility on the dash etc etc. Couldn't be easier or less distracting.
However, I would (selfishly perhaps) absolutely welcome a ban on all in car telephone use unless safely parked.
Not because I have a strong view about whether I or others are safe using them or not, from my own point of view it's such a part of my daily life and has been for so long I hardly notice it.
My support for a ban would come from the perspective that I'd prefer to drive undisturbed and in peace but while it is expected of me by my colleagues and customers and while my competitors have the option, I have little commercial choice but to continue to use the phone while driving.
I'd love it if no one could do it. I could be sure of catching Pop Master and The Archers without interruption.
|
|
Would an employer have any liability having phoned an employee who had an accident during the call?
|
>> Would an employer have any liability having phoned an employee who had an accident during
>> the call?
It entirely possible, tho it would probably need to be shown that the company was shown to be pressurising its employees to answer under unsafe situations, as the choice to answer or not is the employees.
|
>> Would an employer have any liability having phoned an employee who had an accident during
>> the call?
Quite possibly I think. Our policy expressly prohibits their use unless parked up/engine off. We have though very few people driving for business and there's no commercial imperative. Not much a manager or even a Quango Chair or Judge wants doing that won't wait until you are stopped.
|
>> >> Would an employer have any liability having phoned an employee who had an accident
>> during
>> >> the call?
>> Quite possibly I think. Our policy expressly prohibits their use unless parked up/engine off.
Yeah, but you're a civil servant, you're not in the real world - well, not for another day or two!
|
Nick Freeman (celebrity lawyer) also wants Sat Navs banned too, or at the very least switched to sound when the vehicle is moving.
tinyurl.com/pv3erma - The Telegraph
Why don't they just ban driving altogether and be done with it?
|
>> Nick Freeman (celebrity lawyer) also wants Sat Navs banned too, or at the very least
>> switched to sound when the vehicle is moving.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/pv3erma - The Telegraph
Pretty good from a guy who spends all his time keeping unsafe drivers on the road.
|
|
If we ban satnavs, we should legally be allowed to bind and gag all back seat drivers..
Last edited by: madf on Thu 21 Nov 13 at 09:05
|
>> Why don't they just ban driving altogether and be done with it?
They will eventually.
What would irk me about all this if I let it is all the absolute twaddle, sanctimonious hypocrisy and outright lies that surround it.
My responsibility as a driver is to give it the attention it needs. That drivers should maintain 100% concentration at all times is not only unnecessary but impossible. If Lewis Hamilton can talk to his team and adjust his brake balance during a grand prix I'm sure I can listen to the radio, operate the sat nav, or have a conversation while upping my focus on what's going on around me on demand. That's what happens in real life, with everybody, even supporters of Brake.
Back in 1988 I had a job that entailed a lot of travelling and sometimes 6 or 7 hours driving for a meeting of a couple of hours. I got a "car phone" which transformed my working life for the better. It took a lot of pressure, and therefore potential distraction, away. I could keep in touch, not be so concerned about being late, and after a meeting I could get on my way, settle on the drive make some calls and get in train all the work agreed. It wasn't difficult then, and it isn't difficult now. If there's a downside, it's that the office can always get hold of you - not really a road safety issue.
The evidence abounds. I can just about guarantee that if I drive into Aylesbury now I will see at least one and probably two or three car, van or lorry drivers on the phone, hand held to the earhole; plus presumably all the hands-free users. Why aren't they crashing in fireballs left, right and centre? There's your evidence. Despite a stratospheric increase in phone and sat nav use, KSIs remain stubbornly low compared with just about anywhere else. If there was a major problem, we'd know about it.
Of course it can be a distraction. There are unlimited distractions available at all times, including daydreaming or worrying about something unrelated. The requirement is to reserve enough bandwidth for the job in hand.
Politically incorrect maybe, but that's how it really is.
|
"The requirement is to reserve enough bandwidth for the job in hand."
Quite - but some people aren't capable of assessing how much bandwidth they've got to start with. Some are more able than others - Lewis Hamilton and RAF fast jet pilots, for example, are selected out and well-trained to be able to cope with multi-tasking.
I know people who seem to be able to drive a car quite well when they've had a skin-ful of booze. Presumably, Manatee doesn't agree with the drink-drive rules either?
|
>>Presumably, Manatee doesn't agree with the drink-drive rules either?
He does, actually. Alcohol has the simultaneous effect of making people worse at doing just about anything while at the same time making them think they are better. That's the problem with drink. It applies to making conversation while under the influence too.
And he agrees that some people have a poor idea of how much attention they should be paying. But he thinks that would apply whether they were using a phone or not. That's why he thinks that the effect on accident statistics of banning phone and sat nav use would be small, if anything - it might even put the accident rate up.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 21 Nov 13 at 11:39
|
Charity Brake in call to ban car hands-free phones - swiss tony
