Safe Speed Forums

So you're pretty much saying that you agree that a strict liability 'phone at the wheel' law is pointless, when a careless driving offence already exists?

In response to your anticipated cries of strawman, at a perfectly reasonable extrapolation of your logic, do you think people should be criminalised for using their phone whilst stationary? Note that this question only applies to while they are stationary, not presuming guilt based on anyone's assumption of what they may or may not do once traffic starts moving.

(It's pretty sad that I have to caveat so much common sense onto what should be obvious, but that's what your prior twisting and turning has led us to)

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I am broadly in favour of giving people a hard time that are on the phone while driving. Phones are miss-used an awful lot and not just in cars. They do cause a distraction and just watch what you are doing, will you?

Buuuuuuut 20 years ago hardly anyone had a phone to even use while driving, now just about everyone has one and people do use them while driving. If we are to believe what we are told that driving while on the phone = certain death, then where is the corresponding increase in phone related road deaths in the last 20 years? I wouldn't mind betting that pedestrians get hurt more often when they are on the phone than when the person that hits them is on the phone.

Yes, even when they are in a queue of traffic, because it's highly unlikely they' put the phone down when the queue begins to move, or when/if they decide to break out of the queue by pulling left or right, or even u-turn out of it (which I've witnessed on several occasions). This is normally done at speed as by this time the driver is frustrated and looking for a quick way out, and I remember several occaions when said driver was on the phone, with my supposition being they were taking directions from somebody after phoning them to tell them they were stuck in traffic.

Look seriously, get a phone holder so it can be done without clamping a phone to your ear, how hard is this?

Who said this?

That's how these campaigns are normally sold aren't they?

Speeding = certain death

Using the phone = certain death

drink driving = certain death

They will show some child mindlessly wander out into traffic and cut to a drunk/speeding/phoning driver (or whatever type they are cracking down on this week), then cut back to the child bouncing over the bonnet of the car and then show the driver looking shocked as blood dribbles from the corner of the dying childs mouth.

I am NOT condoning using the phone while driving and I see nearly every day stupidity involving mobile phones. But let's just stop and think. Using the phone is not THAT dangerous while driving, but the distraction is not going to help you avoid an incident.

Well done, you've managed to answer a mere one of the questions I have had to ask you twice.

Essentially what you're saying is that people should be criminalised for actions which are not in themselves unsafe because you assume they'll also undertake these actions at a time when they aren't safe. Minority Report much?



I don't need one, as I do not use my phone whilst driving, nor do I condone it, not that I expect you to understand this given your lack of comprehension.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Picking up and using your mobile phone even in a queue of traffic is potentially dangerous as you are in a live traffic situation.

Traffic moves forward, you don't notice (see this a lot) you look up, jump forward in a rush without looking properly (see this a lot) or cause person behind you to do something silly to get round your stationery arse (see this a lot).

Sorry Robin, using a mobile phone whilst your responsible for your vehicle on the public roads, just a big no no.

I have seen a van with both driver and passenger fast asleep in lane 2 of M25. There had been a loooooooong delay early in the morning and they both fell asleep. No body died.

I guess you don't do much dangerous stuff?

Perhaps we ought to criminalise people who are using their phones whilst in possession of their car keys, since we have no guarantee that they won't continue to use their phones when they get into their car and drive off.

Weepej's attitude sums up very nicely what is wrong with the system of strict liability enforcement; we can't guarantee you won't do something dangerous, so we'll judge you by assuming you conform to the lowest common denominator. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the careless/dangerous driving laws covered mobile phone use perfectly adequately, and could have been brought to bear once someone actually did something wrong, rather than punishing them just in case.

The lack of common sense is astounding.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

But that is exactly what the dangerous/ careless driving laws do. Most acts of careless driving do no harm so why punish them. Because they have the potential to cause harm and if repeated often enough they will cause harm. So the punishment is to deter repetition.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I don't disagree, but whereas those laws punish actions which have the direct potential to cause harm, weepej's scenario has us punishing an action which does not, in and of itself, unless combined with a further action which is by no means guaranteed to be undertaken.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

So it's never OK for a driver to use a hand-held mobile, even if they're not moving anywhere, any time soon (but can use a hands-free mobile with impunity)
But if a pedestrian using a mobile phone walks in front of a car without looking, and dies as a result, it's the driver's fault - the mobile phone had nothing to do with it.
According to weepej anyway.
Remember this thread?

The real danger of using a mobile phone lies not in taking your hand from the wheel, but in taking your mind from the road.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Well AFAIK not every member has stated that as their position and Claire, to whom I assume you refer, has said she is questioning the research - but she can speak for herself. My opinion, and that is what it is, is based on my own personal experiences and foolishness I have witnessed and evidence-based on what I have personally seen and nearly suffered for.

Ah, well that’s an easy one for me. I only answered the phone when I was on the motorway or dual carriageway which constituted about 60/70% of my driving just to find out who it was, what is was about and whether I needed to call back. I’d keep it very short just to find that out and say that I am busy driving and can’t speak unless it’s urgent.

On each and every occasion it was never once something which couldn't have been taken later and I don't know why people treat every incoming call like is either about a death in the family or warning of a tsunami heading our way.

I’d ignore it if it was during a manoeuvre or busy situation. Oh and when it rang I hung back with an increased distance between me and the vehicle in front, probably 4 seconds gap, during the brief chat. Again, this was all in the past before legislation and I’m not proud of it but it was ‘the norm’ back then. I decided it shouldn’t be the norm for me before the legislation came in because of the stupid liberties drivers were taking with their own safety, if I can call it that, and that of others.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

It has always struck me as curious that very few people are capable of ignoring a telephone. I have been in meetings at work discussing quite important matters of policy but if the phone rings the Chairman immediately suspends the meeting to deal with some very trivial thing. I think it must hark back to the days when telephone calls were extremely expensive and only used for very important messages

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

But mobile phones used to be very expensive and costly to use as recently as just 10+ years ago and they were crappie. So this matter is a relatively new thing in the driving world.

Given there is always going to be some delay in getting research and facts from anything new which is introduced into the environment, it isn’t surprising that only in recent years police have started to take the time and trouble to check a driver’s mob after an accident. I think this is why it’s slowly emerging as a problem and if two drivers get into an accident where no emergency service is required, the police don’t want to know about it anyway and it goes through the insurance as unrelated to the real cause. In other words, we are not getting the full picture and this may well be just the tip of the iceberg.

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn’t feel so strongly about this if I hadn’t witnessed countless drivers meandering down roads, wandering across lanes of the motorway, (texting in some cases), and hit by a driver myself who was on his phone. (A taxi driver at that!). I hope we have not got to wait for thousands of KSI before unsafe mobile phone practice is clamped down on. Sorry if I’m a disappointment today but that’s what I think; how I really feel.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Yes, we've had that too and think it's incredibly ignorant and disrespectful!

Even if they can resist not taking the call they still have to at least check it to see if David Cameron is on the line. Why has this suddenly become acceptable behaviour! I always felt like saying “I’m sorry, are we keeping you from something?” (The self important nob-head )

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I have often thought that phones ought to have a switch which, when set, stops it ringing and returns a special "I'm too busy to take your call" tone to the caller. Though I suppose than caller ID goes some way in that direction.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I can beat that for rudeness. I used to deal a lot with a large telcoms company who gave all its purchasing staff mobiles to they could keep "in touch". I went to several meetings which were cut short by someone (whose importance clearly superceded mine) phoning them on these mobiles and demanding their instant attention. This only happened with Chinese personnel and when you have come from the U.K. to see them I considered this to be VERY RUDE.

The whole company culture was like this. On the day after the Japanese earthquake, we had an e-mail from them demanding to know if this would affect deliveries. No mention of the tragic death of thousands.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Because he is making light of a serious point, about basing the Law (or new Law) upon facts and scientific and engineering information than, mostly 'assumption' and 'belief'.
Arr you poor soul BT! I had a really good reply all sorted hit submit, and the whole website & forum was down and I lost my reply ! Grrr (Major storm in US and then a delay in 'handshakes' delayed my link to Safe Speed!)

Anyway and more briefly and less well than I had replied before :
No of course I am not saying that all mobile phone use is good - really BT you know us better than that !

Mobile phone use must be fully understood, before penalising all motorists. A full comprehension is needed before drawing up the legal lines and rules & regs. Those rules & regs then need to be promoted and understood by all before prosecutions are issued.

Distraction of all types is never to be encouraged, but if we are to penalise for any specific type, we must thoroughly understand it before singling it out against any other distraction. We must also know that this serious step is absolutely necessary and required - that is all that I am questioning, I am sorry that you have not realised that.

Is there any need to single it out against all other distractions? Do we not need all road users to thoroughly understand about distraction, and to encourage proper control of their vehicle at all times ?
Through proper education, guidance, and appropriate and proportionate enforcement (good police patrols), all people can learn about the dangers of distraction and how that is compiled. But even a 'happy thought' can kill (as Al Gullon states) so how do you regulate that one? The answer is mostly through teaching, and regular reminders of safe practices.
So by encouraging and educating the good behaviours, might be all that is needed to help people recognise and realise the benefits of good and proper behaviours, not overall mass prosecutions that are unlikely to work, and unlikely to stop (as not fully appreciated) the potentially bad behaviour/s.
We must ensure that all the rules and regs are fair, reasonable and necessary, and will achieve the 'desired behaviour'. With so little research, never mind proof, I am questioning that this desire to prosecute is required, when it is only one of a host of potential distraction actions performed by road users. So we need to understand a lot more before any regulation is considered.
(Added - BT I am not trying to be-little your incident, I can appreciate that you were scared, but the problem is one of 'lack of concentration' that needs to be addressed head on. Whether it is map-reading etc it is the lack of appreciate to pay attention and concentrate that is the real fundamental cause. This is how to stop the 'leak' and not just try and stem the flow if you will.)

I would never want to just condemn any action by all road users, without proper scientific & sound engineering evidence, & research. By having the 'facts', it helps to know which and what, enforcements are, necessary and which precise behaviour is 'bad'' 'OK' and 'acceptable'. So a carte blanc regulation that enforces every mobile phone use is not scientific and not necessarily correct, as it won't necessarily achieve the desired behaviour (safe road use). It is highly likely to be ignored, dis-respected, and dis-obeyed too, as it is already if it is considered unfair or unreasonable. Then the authorities simply add all the ANPR cameras to judge speed, judge all distractions and start prosecuting for every single infringement no matter how small, whether it even caused anyone else a problem or not. (In other words it is not addressing the true root cause of this issue.)

In other words, the rules and regs need to reflect only what approx. 15% of that which a considerate and careful road user, won't do.

Typically calling 999 is not considered ideal, but in an emergency it is accepted (you are also highly alert, aware, and observant). We could probably all give many safe and dangerous mobile phone use examples, ... it is when, where, how and duration, that will vary the exposure to danger, or dangerous use, and that is mostly likely in the form of distraction, lack of concentration, level of observation etc.
If you are still unsure then I will try to explain it better. I hope that this has helped. (Sadly I said it better before - I think !)
Edited to help ...

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

I've made a habit of copying the entire text of my posting onto the clipboard before hitting 'submit'. It's just two mouse clicks and it saves a lot of frustration.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler