Safe Speed Forums

I'm really very sure that if there were a few million non-fatal crashes...

- There would be many more fatal crashes because that's the way the probability works. The ratios aren't fixed, but they do stay in the ball park.

- We would know about the huge incidence of mobile phone driving in non-fatal crashes. (On the basis that when the numbers are big enough the behaviour simply can't be missed.)

So I don't believe you're working from a sound premise there.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Probably because a lot of the time other drivers see the erratic driving are take avoiding action.

Surely 13 dead for the sake of something that is completely unnecessary is something we should all care about. Hands free kits are cheap.

So would you take 20% of the resources away from drink drive enforcement to deal with it? And if you did, what would be the likely effect?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I too have an inherent distrust of drivers using mobile phones.

Perhaps the stats don't support the claimed danger, but that does not convince me that their use whilst driving is not a serious risk.

Try sitting on a motorcycle at traffic lights with an artic' lorry bearing down on you as the driver negotiates the corner, trying to steer and change gear with a phone clamped to his ear!

Admittedly, I'm of an age where I'd rather retain my right arm than not lose my mobile, so I can't really understand the obsession with their use.
However, it's not as if people haven't been given time to sort themselves out. Obviously, the general inability to enforce the law has given rise to tougher "sticks" with which to theoretically beat the public. The inability to enforce still remains but, maybe, the new threat will reduce some of their use.

I, for one, really hope so...

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

I'd absolutely like to see less of it too. But I'd like to see less hands-free, not more, and I DON'T want resources taken away from bigger sources of danger.

It's the enhanced law that's a great big MISS, not the idea.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I don't see why you would have to take any resources away from drink driving enforcement. I am not a trained traffic officer but I can still spot twats driving erratically. Police officers are perfectly cable of spotting erratic driving and then acting to find why it is happening, whether it be due to drink, phones or anything else. With the new law the Police can take action to stop it and the offender gets a meaningful penalty.

I am beginning to think that Scottish drivers must be much better at phoning while driving than English drivers if you really think that this is not a problem!

In an ideal world, yes, lets have less hands-free too, but the lorry driver with a blue-tooth implant is infinitely preferable to the one-handed version!

And I can't see how resources are likely to be taken away from other needs. Surely the traffic cop is looking at ALL dangers. We aren't going to have dedicated phone-police, are we?

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

there are lots of crashes in supermarket car parks. How many of them are fatal?

They could do that with the old law too, DWDC&A.



Prophetic perhaps! I have little doubt the unneccesary new law is to enable non-police to enforce the offence. Someone recently quoted an SCP claiming to have plans to enforce now their funding is more general. All fine and dandy if phones are the danger they claim, but the SCPs have already been proven to be self-serving, dishonest and deceitful, I'd rather have more police on the roads for the money, enforcing a variety of offences and still able to deal with 'phoners' under existing legislation.

Absolutely, but the fact is we have less police on our roads and the existing 'phone law had very little effect on many drivers. What other weapon is there other than increased penalties?

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

Careless driving carries a maximum penalty of £2500 and 9 points.

Dangerous Driving can see an unlimited fine, up to 2 years imprisonment and a disqualification of at least a year.

Both can be appropriate for phoner-drivers.

I don't know, but I'd bet that it's quite a few. The cause of death would probably a falling pedestrian hitting their head or a crush injury.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

None of the science makes that true. It's supposed to be the distraction effect of the conversation that causes the danger.



Even if it's ten minutes to spot, follow, stop, confirm identity, issue ticket, record, and follow up, that's still 'resources' not being used for other things. And with just 100,000 tickets in a year it's pretty massive.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

no, you don't


but you have no idea. Let's not let that stop us though. What is the fatality/crash percentage in car parks like compared to the rest of the road system?

I told you I didn't know.

But I do know that a significant proportion of pedestrian fatalities involve very low speed impacts.

And we had figures in here showing (from memory) that 25% of child pedestrian fatalities took place during reversing.

And I have looked at fatality ratios in all sorts of figures across roads, vehicles, populations and so on. Never once has the ratio been more than about 3 fold away from

1,000:100:10:1

damage only:injury:serious injury:fatal

I'm not saying that that picture is guaranteed, but it is extremely likely.

But anyway the supermarket car park example isn't very helpful is it? Mobile phones can cause crashes anywhere on the road network.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

That may be the case, but I know who I'd rather take my chances with.




OK. That's a good argument.

One problem here is the lack of traffic police but given that that's the case, I am inclined to believe that the perceived tougher penalties will do as much to curtail use as the reality of being caught.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

Purely a gut shot, but I would have thought that drivers were more likely to remain or become stationary whilst talking on the phone in a car park than whilst driving along the public highway.

Possibly a red herring.

The fact remains that, regardless of the theory, if phoner-drivers were causing danger on the roads there was already adequate legislation in place to deal with them with sufficient severity without introducing yet another strict liability offence.

It does put me in mind of the film Demolition Man, where wall mounted computer terminals repeatedly fine Sylvester Stallone's character for 'violation of the verbal morality statute' every time he utters a profanity.

Then why not publicise the actual maximum penalties, rather than introducing unneccesary legislation?

I don't know but wasn't the previous law a bit subjective? Now it's black and white. Phone or no phone.

I happen to be in the camp that believes the use of a mobile phone carries a serious risk element - more police using existing law would be best, but that ain't going to happen.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

that all depends where people are using phones. I was trying to show that certain behaviours aren't necessarily going to be reflected in fatal accident statistics.
If the phone usage is mainly in low speed urban environments, for instance, then the accidents are more likely to be of the minor variety - or avoided by those of us who can see that the idiot ahead is going to pull out of that junction because he's too busy on the phone to notice me.