Safe Speed Forums

Not at all Robin, I know and knew before the start of this thread.

But we have specific laws for certain offenses to highlight them in order to draw the public’s attention to it. If you have some sort of law, let’s just call it ‘Naughty Offence’ or NO for short, which encompasses mob use, drink driving, dangerous driving, speeding etc. etc., then how are you going to capture the public’s imagination on a specific, (bad), offence?

Are you saying you disagree with a specific offence having its own penalty because an umbrella term covers the lot and then maybe deter people from specific bad habits with an occasional advert on the TV? Aint gunna happen mate. Even the most graphic ads I’ve seen, (which are no worse than a kid watches on his Play Station these days), at best make people think for a moment and at worst are completely ignored. But a change in the law, or a new one, does!

If you create a law for a specific offence and attach a fine and points to it, people stand up and notice. I remember when people never used to pay much attention to illegal tyres back in the 70’s, trying to get the very most out of them as they could, until it carried a heavy penalty for each illegal tyre of three points and a fine. Few drivers don’t know this now or the correct tread depth and I can't remember the last time I saw a bald tyre outside a scrap yard. The lag we are seeing between continued HH mobile use and the introduction of the law is because:

A) Most people seem convinced it’s not dangerous, or at least not by themselves.
B) Most people know they can get away with it or disguise it until the moment has past.
C) They think their busy lifestyle trumps the inconvenience of a Hands-free.
D) It has still only been in force a relatively short time.
E) There aren’t nearly so many traffic police to Police it anyway.

_________________
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.

[quote="Big Tone"]But we have specific laws for certain offenses to highlight them in order to draw the public’s attention to it. If you have some sort of law, let’s just call it ‘Naughty Offence’ or NO for short, which encompasses mob use, drink driving, dangerous driving, speeding etc. etc., then how are you going to capture the public’s imagination on a specific, (bad), offence?[/qoute]

Quite. Using Robin's argument you could do away with all statute law and replace it with the a single offence of "Bad behaviour" which encompassed every thing from Murder to Littering.

_________________
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

TBH tone when speed enforcement started there were cries that police officers in vans was a waste of resources, so what happened the police were deployed to FL policing and civvy staff put into vans, then we had we want education not enforcement so we had SAC courses come in but that was wrong,

still the cries we want proper policing with officers using their discretion until we had the case of Supt. chameberlain and the obstruction of a police officer in their duty, we had cries of they do nothing about the unroadworthy and uninsured vehicles http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24096&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a yet that was questioned.

we have had the pro anti seat belt debates, and now mobile phones not a problem 15 yr ago, but now it is, purely and simply it is easier to prove a case of using a mobile phone than say a charge of due care, many SCP pass the evidence onto police for further action, what about reading a map whilst driving or entering info on a sat nav

is it safe to use a mobile phone whilst in stationary traffic, compared to urban driving, in most cases these days its not just a quick chat its a conversation with the contracts available etc.

so yes many have complained about the use of phones, now that it is being enforced they dont want it or like it, i am not sure if its the offence that is the issue or just because it is a law

i am somewhat surprised like you Tone that many on here are opposed to it taking into account most are bikers so that current law is mainly irrelevant to them

_________________
now retired

I can't remember if I said this already now because of everything going on and the inordinate amount of time I am putting into this. But I spoke to an IAM representative last Thursday, also called Anthony as it happens.

After I gave him my 'credentials' contact details etc. and reason for asking, (NHS Rehab), I said that I wanted to know their position on this because I’d looked on their site and could see nothing specifically related to HH mobile phones.

There was/is plenty on Sat Navs CO, but not just on what I was interested in. After him saying it's illegal, which I already knew, he agreed that it is not something the IAM countenance and agreed there was nothing on their web site but would post something directly to me. He didn't get around to it before I left on Friday so maybe I have something interesting to read from him on Monday...

I assume we all respect the Institute of Advanced Motorists?

Add: BTW CO, just so you know or if you think I'm a turncoat



More add:
I don't know if that's true but you don't have to be a biker to be principled and we are often quite a vociferous minority. Case of having to be sadly.

_________________
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.

Tone, Bearing in mind that I am (generally) in agreement that using hand-help mobiles is a bad idea, I'm a bit intrigued as to the ferocity of your stance on this one.

I'm also a bit surprised at your "BRAKE-like" comment "...If you’re wrong then countless numbers of men, women and children will join the KSI list for the sake of using a safe or safer alternative."

We all know that it won't be "countless", it will be a relatively small number. OF that number, there will be an even smaller number where it was definitely down to a driver using a hand-held mobile (as opposed to "involving" a driver using a hand-held mobile. That said, of course it's not a good thing to have ANYONE killed, I'm just a bit surprised at the almost hysterical terminology?

The other thing I'm curious about is that this stance doesn't sit well with your attitude to speed limits and their enforcement. Pretty much all the arguments you make could be (and often are!) used against exceeding the speed limit. Now I think that just about every sane individual realises that exceeding the speed limit is something which CAN, on occasions, lead to an accident. More often than not, however, it doesn't. The experienced driver will understand that exceeding the speed limit when conditions are unfavourable is a bad idea. Likewise, the experienced driver will understand that using a hand-held mobile when conditions are favourable will be less dangerous than when they are unfavourable. The argument that it is NEVER OK is often used about exceeding the speed limit too...

As I said at the start, I don't think it is right to use a hand-held mobile, but I also know that there are occasions when it is not going to cause any danger. In fact, it's patently NEVER going to cause any more danger than using a CB, walkie-talkie, taxi or emergency services radio and NOBODY has yet managed to explain to me why the law deems it "safe" to use such devices but not mobiles...

...maybe Weepy will...

Nonsense. Those mics are often picked up from a holder and then put back after a very short couple of words.

I see people driving along for ages yapping on their mobiles and reaching down trying to find them in bags etc... when they ring.

I'd have no big beef if they made the use of any handheld equipment illegal when you're responsible for a vehicle, but in my mind mobile phones were always the priority.

I've seen truckers chatting mile after mile on CBs too.

Anyway, would a hand-held mobile be OK if it was picked up from a holder and put down after a very short couple of words?

And the experienced surgeon can remove an appendix safely in ten minutes but I doubt if you would want me wielding a scalpel over your McBurnley's point. We are not talking about experienced drivers using mobile phones, we are talking about all drivers using them. I am quite safe driving on bald tyres at ninety miles an hour after six pints whilst talking on the phone and eating pork scratchins. But few other drivers are, so I have to accept some curtailment of my right to do so in the greater good.


CB's are in the same class as handheld mobile phones. But Taxi and emergency service radio are used for passing brief message not for holding long conversations. Big differance.

_________________
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’m emotionally highly-strung and have witnessed far too much twatish behaviour because of HH phones. It’s made all the worse for me by the apparent denial that no-one except me sees it and that it is somehow necessary behaviour. I am also p1ssed off at feeling brow-beaten into submission just because I am trying to make a valid point which doesn't concur with the 'I'm sure you realise I'm right' party line.

Brake! Me? That hurt! BTW I’m not hysterical, I’m actually quite calm sitting at my desk; not gnashing my teeth into powder.

Well countless means the same a numberless. I don’t have an exact number and, as so often is the case, if you don’t have a number these days you don’t have an argument despite what you may see happening around you.

Which is why I have continued to distance myself from weepejs’ and Camera Operator’s 'silver bullet' answer to road safety by dumb speed enforcement. I have purposely referenced and separated speed along the way fully expecting and mindful of this very comment Mole.

Taking your eyes off the road and screwing around with a mobile for 2, 3, 4 seconds is insane! If you’re over a limit by 'however much' you at least have your eyes on the road. How far does a car travel in one second at 30mph? I can’t be bothered to work it out right now but that’s one second on top of your ~0.2 reaction time. See the difference? Driving demands full concentration, I’m sure that’s a mantra I’ve heard espoused here too. Where the F**k did that go?




It isn’t, any more than traf pol speed with impunity, more often than not. But they are advanced drivers and it is, wait for it, necessary in their job.

I'm glad you "broadly" agree with me but I predict I won't be here for much longer. If I, or anyone else, have got to go to such 'unecessary' and long rediculous posts to make a very simple point a six year old could understand and how it badly reflects on true road safety then I don't want to be 'in the club', or what you might call hysterical.

_________________
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.

wow, this IS a heated one!

I can see the merits of all sides of the argument.

The obvious parallel for us to use is the speeding laws. There is a school of thought that says this (Leeming). There was a good thread about that in the clubhouse a while back (link for Safe Speed members only)
This is I think where Robin (et al's) point is relevant. However, I have found myself disagreeing with that for the reasons I have already stated here.


I suspect it is commonly accepted that the use of HH can be very dangerous when used incorrectly. For me, the underlying question is: can I (we) trust all drivers to use HH phones safely? But Tone has rightly alluded to the false dichotomy, there is another option: HF (hands free).

Intuitively I’m with Tone (regarding dangers of HH); I think we all agree there is the potential for risk, and HF minimises that risk. However, this campaign is one based on evidence, and so far I've see none demonstrating the dangers of HH phone use (but there is plenty of misinformation). So I think SafeSpeedV2 is being entirely consistent with their overall position.

As a compromise, perhaps it is best that the HH mobile law is continued, but with the penalty reduced (e.g. fine but no points). Thus it could be argued that anyone caught by a liveried cop car could not have been properly aware of their surroundings, but wouldn't lose 1/4 of their license, so they probably wouldn’t be afforded any sympathy by anyone.


The real question here is: do we want to wait for the risky behaviour to surface before action is taken, or do we create rules to try to end that risky behaviour accepting that those who can behave safely will be restricted or penalised? I do have faith in my fellow man, but not that much, in all men!
(that probably deserves its own thread).

Failing that, perhaps we all need need to take a breather and agree to disagree (the lack of real data means this is issue is a subjective one) and revisit this later on - over some pints



Perversely, some might way that drivers on phones aren't actually more dangerous

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Steve.

Do you regard all of the published studies which show the increased accident risk from using HH as misinformation? And, if so, what methodology would you offer to obtain a clear answer?

_________________
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

There is no way I could claim to have read "all published" studies. However, I have cast grave doubts on some claims regarding HH use.


The previous answer was effectively 'no', so I need not answer this question. I shall do so anyway.

Referencing actual data would be a damned good start.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

That’s been my whole argument in one all along! But it keeps coming back to ‘let’s get the research first’ - ‘we should have got the research first’.

You stole my “real question”. Thief! I’d like it back ASAP please.

_________________
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 do get the feeling that some people have a very clear idea of what mobile use at the wheel means to them and are somewhat unable to view the wider picture.

Is all handheld mobile use equal? Is it as dangerous to be talking on your phone whilst stationary in traffic, as it is whilst driving on a clear motorway, as it is whilst passing a school at kicking-out time? Covering mobile phone use under the careless/dangerous driving laws allowed these distinctions to be made, and punishments proportional to the severity of the ill-advised behaviour meted out. The specific mobile phone legislation effectively limits the scope of these punishments in practical use, so you won't see the most dangerous user punished any more harshly than the non-dangerous user.

Is this the sort of justice we want?

Now I've heard the claims that a specific law sends a stronger message, but how do we think this message reaches the man on the street? Is your common-or-garden motorists a keen reader of Hansard? Of course not, the message arrives mainly through the media. If the message were about the police being instructed to clamp down on mobile phone use would that message fail to get through because it's about rigorous enforcement of an existing law rather than a new one? Of course not.

What the pre-existing legislation did offer was the opportunity for those who were using their mobiles completely safely, albeit whilst sitting in the driver's seat of a car, to defend themselves. I'm not talking about some special ability to do a million things at the same time safely that only a small section of the population possess, so go ahead and untwist your knickers you lot. I'm asking you to think about the woman who was charged for taking a sip from a water bottle whilst stationary at a red light. Was this necessary? No of course not; she was not going to die of thirst in the time it took her to find somewhere safe to pull over, stop the engine, get out of the car and have her drink. Was it dangerous? Well, weepej would have you believe that she may very well have continued to drink once the light had turned green and she had moved off, but thankfully this is not how our legal system works, so his wild fantasies of pre-crime enforcement will have to remain within the realms of science fiction. I'm sure those of us who possess a modicum of common sense, and lack the impulses to be continually contrary, can see that it was not, but she was charged anyway.

Now whilst the outcome of that particular case is entirely irrelevant, what does matter is that she had the opportunity to defend herself, and were she able to prove that she was in proper control of her vehicle, not driving below the standard required, then she would be acquitted. Were this an example of mobile phone use, confined wholly to the time sat stationary at the lights, there would be no defence under the new legislation.

Is this the sort of justice we want?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

No, and I have said so earlier. If you think about it most laws are very rigid, like I said about Drink Driving, Speeding, tread depth etc. I think it was Steve who earlier said there is a parallel between mobile phone use and speeding. I agree. To use a phrase coined by Paul, the law is a blunt instrument. But it was a necessary blunt instrument which, just like speed, needs to be refined. As I’ve said, it’s a starting point to curb, (I’ll say), the minority of idiots while we find out more and research it.


How does it limit It doesn’t replace DD or DWDC it is an addition, hopefully to prevent the occurrence of DD or DWDC. If you plough into a line of school kids because you were yabbering on the mob and lost control you wouldn’t just get done for mobile phone use so I’m afraid you’ve lost me there The most dangerous will feel the full weight of the law.

You wouldn’t get through a driving test, especially today's theory part, without being quite literate. Your “keen reader of Hansard?” is as emotive as my earlier “think of the men, women and children” which Mole thrashed me to within an inch of my life for earlier. (Tell him Mole, fair's fair. ).

I’ve already answered that one, or so I thought. Before the law was introduced, if the police were all told they had to clamp down on it you are very much leaving it to the grapevine and you’re going to get people pleading ignorance. “Oh sorry officer, I really had no idea”. But who doesn’t know they shouldn’t do it today? Very few I would have thought because there is a specific law now. I don’t think there’s a motorist out there who would have the audacity to use ignorance as an excuse.

Yes, my earlier point about a blunt instrument which needs refining. If she’s stuck on the M6 Southbound in gridlocked traffic she should be able to pick up the phone and call base to say she’s going to be late. I’ve done it myself but these days I do it using a hands-free. What’s wrong with that?

A thousand times no. Probably some moronic PC jobs-worth.

The blunt instrument again.

Here’s the thing.. I can’t think of many laws, (or any), which when brought in isn’t either blunt, inevitably objectionable, persecutes many, or does not undergo ‘growing pains’.

But it’s a start and there is an alternative, as I keep saying. It’s not like they have ruined or restricted your life, leisure or pleasure, and the advantage is it’s helping to prevent drivers weaving across lanes, clipping curbs, or killing someone. That is of course until more research proves there’s nothing wrong with it and the minority of drivers who are incompetent can be taught.

Out of curiosity, do you wear a seat belt Robin? If so, why? You’re a good driver with an accident-free record spanning years and, without giving anything away I hope, you're skillfull in the air too So why wear it? Well I’m guessing it’s either because it was made law but you might also say “well yes but it’s because there’s a minority of fools out there who could hit me!”

Good point. If that's what you think then we agree on something.

But you know what? I don’t want to be hit by a minority moron using a mobile phone inappropriately, like the moron in that taxi who hit me about three years ago. Never used a seat belt in anger in 36 years but suffered at the end of a using a mobile three times. (Two were only minor to be fair though). What we’ve got in common here Robin is we each think the other isn’t understanding our point.

How are my arguing skills coming on btw?

_________________
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.

Well the thread’s gone over the bell curve and well down the other side and I think I've made everyone feel uncomfortable, so time for a slight topic drift I say...

Actually, it is related to this thread but you will have to bear with me. That’s not a typo, I’ve got a bear that’s got into my study and I.. ahhh!! Ohhh!!!! %$*&%...

............ %$*&%...

Phew! Good job I keep a sabre in me knickers. So then, where was I...?

When I was a fresh-faced naive 17 year old in 1975 I started on the road on my brand new Honda 250 G5 and my mum was worried about me so she put me in contact with a wonderful relative, called George Hill. He was a lifetime biker and when I met him he was retired and had a Honda 350 at about the age of 62’ish back then in 75. I learnt so much from him over the years, like a surrogate dad I would say in some ways even though I didn’t see him very often. But he was the closest I had to a father figure.

I didn’t have many mates in 75/76, (one to be exact who went on the trawlers off Norway), and I was shy and introvert. Having lost my dad at seven, (that’s seven years old not seven o’clock), I became a mummy’s boy or poof just because the only beaver I’d ever seen at 17 had teeth. (That’s still PG isn’t it? I hope?). Ah whatever, I’ll let the mods wrestle with it...

So anyway, I got to know George and his lovely wife very well and went up to the local pub with him to meet his equally old mates who had been through times most of us can only imagine and not once in the following years did they ever talk about wartime experiences - but boy did they ‘do’ politics which I hadn’t the faintest clue about at the time. I was more interested in my bike but I absolutely loved the company of these lovely wonderful old men and their wisdom on everything!!! My contemporaries were not interested in ‘old fuddy duddy’s’, like I was, (they had no respect for ‘your elders’ who fought for our country and what we/they all enjoy today), and were busy trying to prove how macho they were.

I was glad to be where I was with these great old men and had never seen such a heated argument in my life in that pub that first of many nights! At times, with raised voice and major loud red-faced finger-pointing, I thought it was going to break into a big fight, not fisticuffs but I was sat there feeling very uncomfortable and thought we would never all meet up ever again!

At the end of the night though, as we were all leaving, I saw their red faces change to a warm smile and handshake as they all bid farewell ‘till next time and they all had a good evening. At times, while I sat and watched and listened, (probably to them looking like a scared rabbit in the headlights of an on-coming car), I got things like “all right son?”. I remember and miss those days so much but I learned so much about life which I don’t think is being passed on these days.

The moral of this true story is don’t get bent out of shape over an argument and lose friends or people with whom you have so much in common if you just opened your eyes. It’s just an argument, we are not at war here and we can all learn from others no matter what our differences are.

Well, that’s what I think as I try to fill the void here as we bicker about nothing really.

Tony

_________________
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.

Is that a fair analogy though? You (presumably?) have no medical qualifications whatsoever, whereas ALL drivers (well, legal ones anyway!) have at least one qualification. I take your point about lack of experience and, of course, I agree, but that's only the same as speeding isn't it? The less experienced driver is likely to do that where it's not appropriate too.


Regarding the issue of them not being used for long periods, I'm not sure that works. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to loose concentration / have an accident. True, if you're going to have a long mobile conversation, you're going to be exposing yourself to that risk for longer periods of time, but I'm sure taxi drivers use them for less time, but more often. As for the legality of CB, are you sure? I'm pretty certain all 2-way radios are specifically exempt. C&U Reg 110 gives a list of frequencies that are subject to the regs and I thought CBs were 27 MHz? I'm pretty certain that if they wanted to continue letting "plod" use his, the only way that could happen was by allowing CBs to continue. In any case, even when CBs were popular, we didn't hear of carnage resulting from their use. It's odd. I'm genuinely curious and would like more research. That's not me saying the law doesn't suit me, it's simply me thinking it's odd!

Sorry I meant in the same class of distractions as hand helds, not the same licence class.

_________________
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

Just so long as they weren't feeding you Wether's Originals all that time! I reckon old men who are excesively generous towards kids when it comes to Werthers need to be treated with deep suspicion!

Seriously, peace dude! (didn't there used to be a hippy smiley?)

I don't think we're bickering about nothing, I think it's been a very interesting debate, and I think the 8 pages it has run to have raised some very good issues. I'm not even sure WHY I decided to pick up the other side of the argument (other, perhaps, than because I'm a contrary git looking for a cyber-fight!), given that I don't even think using a hand-held is generally a good idea. At the end of the day, it might simply be because if I accept the "we should ban everyone from doing it, ever, because some people do it and have accidents" argument, I would also have to apply the same argument to exceeding the speed limit.

I don't particularly like mobile phones.
I think that in most cases they are a distraction that we could well do without - and for many years we did!

I have one of course - foisted upon me by my wife (who just wanted to keep tabs on me really) when my brother in law bought a newer model (again) than the previous ones he had used!
However, I only ever switch it on to make a call - then it is turned straight off again... much to the chagrin of my wife!
In 8 years, I have purchased about £20 of credit - of which £11 is currently still on my phone!

I use it more on holiday to keep in touch with the places we are staying - about three calls in the last 8 years... and used up the majority of my credit when my mother's land line developed a fault, and we had to phone France Telecom to get it fixed!

So their use in vehicles?
Why?
What can be so important that your phone cannot take a message so you can call back later - not swerve into the side of the road with tyre smoke to answer it right away!
Service engineers and their like maybe - but they usually have handsfree kits anyway.

My local roads are not very straight, and are full of rises and hollows, unpredictable tourists and sheep, and yet daily, I am confronted by drivers whose attention is clearly not on the road ahead, but on the phone in their hand! Most are not posing an immediate danger on the road - but could so easily do so if something unexpected were to happen in front of them!
One chap in a 4x4 with a trailer behind passed me two or three times on his phone - obviously getting directions. DOUBLE PERIL - lost, looking for an entrance somewhere, AND talking on the mobile...

I have witnessed a coach (full of pensioners) hogging the outer lane of a contraflow on the M6, exceeding the reduced limit, as the driver talked into his mobile.
In fact the police joined the motorway, and followed him for some distance as he tail gated another coach at a distance of approximately ten feet at 60 mph!
They eventually pulled him over to replay the video to him - but chose not to issue a penalty - although he WAS reported to his traffic manager.
I also saw a driver in front of me, drop his phone into the passenger footwell, then duck down to retrieve it, while approaching a junction just over the brow of a hill - all that could be seen of the driver was his right hand on the wheel!

I would gladly allow drivers the discretion to use their mobiles when it was safe to do so - IF it were absolutely necessary, AND if I did not see so many drivers clearly paying attention to the phone to the detriment of their driving, so for THAT reason (not my loathing of the devices) I support Tone in his feeling that the ban on mobiles is fair.
Some of the penalties handed down, and the quality of the evidence in certain cases however are NOT fair.
Does anyone think that seatbelts are NOT a good idea? How often have yours saved your life?
Should wearing them be compulsory? Yes, because otherwise too many would choose not to wear them - and so it is with mobile phone use.

Anybody here still use a hand held phone while driving despite the ban?

Hmmm...

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!