Safe Speed Forums

Yes, but not me.
Never
No
It is not the purpose of the law to prevent adults from doing dangerous things which pose no threat to others.

_________________
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

Did Mole just insinuate I’m a hippy? Ah, who am I kidding, I am a bit I suppose

I’ve many such stories Ernest, that’s why I find it so hard to believe what I have been reading here. It has actually felt like the best form of defence has been to attack me.

Off to Hereford now, I’ll see if I can take pictures of idiots using their mob foolishly while driving, using the camera on my phone.

_________________
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 thought you were concerned with preventative measures, not throwing the book at someone after the damage has been done.

The legislation effectively limits by its application; if someone is seen on their mobile no further assessment or evidence gathering is required, the charge with the negligible burden of proof can be applied, with virtually zero chance of a defence, hence 3 points and £60 for any of the drivers in my example.



You have misunderstood me, I was referring to the message arriving through the same channels, and reaching the same audience, but with different content, that being that police were clamping down on mobile phone use using existing, broad and proportionate, powers, rather than it's easier to punish you for mobile phone use now, by virtue of "law lite", but don't worry, you can still do it several times before you risk losing your licence.

As far as reading Hansard being emotional, only if that emotion is boredom.



The start was already in place. Come on Tone, I know you're capable of understanding this! What we have in the specific legislation is a step away from justice.

Had the authorities wanted to make it easier to deal with mobile phone use there is no reason why they couldn't have started issuing conditional offers to those collared on the phone, I'm sure many would have copped to it just fine. You would have a situation which was de facto very similar to that which we have today, with one significant difference; those who were using their phone under completely safe circumstances would have a chance to defend themselves from having done anything against the interests of society (laws having to be "for the greater good", remember) rather than being guilty by dint of holding the phone whilst in their car, troubling nobody.

Try thinking of it this way: We desire to punish bad driving, such that people are made aware of their bad driving, and are disincentivised from repeating it, whilst others are dissuaded from emulating their actions. Using a mobile whilst sat in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle is not bad driving. It may be a factor contributing to bad driving under certain circumstances, but the aspect we really want to punish is the mind-set that thought it was ok to introduce another distraction to the driving task under those circumstances.



I wear a seatbelt for the same reason I have comprehensive insurance, it costs very little to me, but provides a lot in the way of mitigation, should the worst happen.



Well, if you really want a critique, you do seem to be taking things a bit personally; try to think back to your old boys in the pub.

Comprehension could use some work, but I appreciate that this is a topic you feel strongly about, and so it is somewhat understandable that you'd think you've read something that surprises/outrages you and rush to post without getting the point.

In conclusion, I do understand your point, but I do not agree that the specific legislation was a step in the right direction, from a perfectly good start point already enshrined in law. I don't care about being restricted in using a handheld phone, I don't anyway, what I care about is that laws are applied in the interests of society and of justice. Nobody (except weepej's Bureau of Pre-Crime) could argue that punishing someone for using their phone during a stationary period is in the interests of society, yet this is what the specific legislation mandates, to an equal degree as someone who uses theirs whilst driving past a school at kicking-out time, which flies in the face of the principle of justice.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

And yet the law is full of Acts designed to prevent the population causing themselves harm.

Motorcycle helmets and seatbelts being just two - and child car seats... airbags, which if given a choice, SOME would choose not to use.
I have heard it said that it is not fair to expect others to clean up accident sites after a messy death when it could have been prevented by the use of safety features!

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

If that had read:

"...I would gladly allow drivers the discretion to exceed the speed limit when it was safe to do so - IF it were absolutely necessary, AND if I did not see so many drivers clearly (not) paying attention to the (road) to the detriment of their driving, so for THAT reason (not my love of speed limits) I support the feeling that the ban on exceeding the speed limit is fair.

Would you feel the same way about it?

Again, as I've already admitted to Tone, I'd feel less comfortable using a hand held mobile than I would exceeding the speed limit (in most cases) but not always. I'm just intrigued by the apparent difference with which each action is being treated in this thread. Is it the "not paying attention" bit that makes the difference?

Well, ok, maybe only compulsory when sitting behind another occupied seat then?

Nah - just that "peace-out dude" is something hippies seem to say a lot. And honestly! Stop taking everything so personally! You're a well-liked and respected contributor to these fora and I, for one, have absolutely no trouble in recognising and accepting your arguments in this thread. I'm just curious as to (a) the strength of feeling you obviously have on this one (which I think you've already explained) and (b) why the difference between allowing choice when it comes to this, as opposed to (say) speeding.

Aside from that, I have other doubts as to whether it's the "hand held" bit that's the problem, whether it's the "looking at" bit that's the problem, or whether it's the "conversation distraction itself" bit that's the problem. Obviously, in the latter case, hands-free doesn't help and in the first, it only begs the question as to why other communications devices are not deemed (by the law) to be a problem.

Selecting a safe speed for the conditions is part of the driving task. The posted limit is largely irrelevant to this and exceeding it does not distract or detract from the task.

Holding a telephone to your ear and having a conversation is not part of the driving task. Thus they are dissimilar.

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

I think there has been quite a bit of ad-hominem aimed at me, and patronization, which I have been gracious enough not to point out. I’m not falling out with you Robin, or anyone else, but maybe you could answer me one last one..

Leaving aside what I know and see for myself, (and a few others have said too, to their credit), I have taken it from here that we have either little or no reliable evidence or data to date? I’ll assume that’s correct from past posts if I may? With this is mind I’ll also assume we could start doing this research from today.

Now we may differ on this next bit so I’ll underplay it and say that by the time we have enough reliable data to act upon this matter we may be looking at having something, (enough), in two or three years time. And I think that’s really underplaying it IMO. Add to this the way these things take time to lobby and get through Parliament etc. we are up to, let’s say, three or four years. I hope everything I’ve said so far is fair and without exaggeration? It was a very long time and a lot of smashed bikers heads before the introduction of the law on helmets so, if anything, I have under-exaggerated IMO.

So this is my question to you. If you think the law should not have been brought in, or should be repealed, would you be happy for there to continue to be no law restricting the use of HH phones for a further three or four years while we find out if there’s a case to answer?

Yes or no?

I ask because if that really is the SS message I still say I don’t think it’s a very good message coming from a road safety campaign and that is my honest opinion.

I am perfectly calm and still a staunch supporter of SS, but for the last time - if SS’s argument is to have done ‘nothing before we have data’ then we really will finally just have to leave it at that and agree to disagree - which I am okay with Robin, honestly, and no hard feelings towards anyone here mate.

I can't and won't keep batting this back and forth ad-infinitum because, in answer to each of the rebuttals, I feel I could now just pick passages from everything I’ve already written, or from fellow 'understanders', and for the first time I’m beginning to see just how hard it must be for weepej, dcb or any non-member to sometimes make a 'valid' point without the Safe Speed ‘privilege’ that has been afforded to me so far.

_________________
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.

Firstly the setting of appropriate speed limits would colour my thinking.
A fairly set speed limit would not require any discretion about breaking it - but perhaps some discretion on the part of the BiB as to whether they warn or prosecute.

I saw a vehicle last night doing around 65mph in a 50 limit, heading towards Ings, which given the number of trees blown down was stupid - but not dangerous in it's self.
The issue with the phone which rarely applies to speeding, is the degree of attention paid to the road ahead. MOST speeders pay MORE attention, rather than less.

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

You see this is the bit that makes me think you haven't been paying any attention to what I've written at all, which I may take personally, as I have gone to pains to represent my position as plainly as possible.

If the specific legislation regarding mobile phones had not been brought in, or was repealed, then there would continue to be a pre-existing law resticting the use of handheld phones at the wheel.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I have been paying attention but I see you have a strong aversion to the word ‘No!’

You could equally have said "No, because If the specific legislation regarding mobile phones had not been brought in, or was repealed, then there would continue to be a pre-existing law resticting the use of handheld phones at the wheel” which means you would be happy for there never to have been a specific law to target this because it's already more than adequately covered with an umbrella law? Correct?

Let’s see how he feels about the word ‘yes’ next

Were you paying attention to my argument covering that Umbrella thing I mentioned earlier? I can re-post the salient part if you want? You should have been a politician.

May as well. See, I said I think I've reached a point where I can just refer to previous stuff. Two can play at this game. You're the one punching me and I'm the one kicking you back

_________________
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.

IAM does not respect SS much,

have you tried speaking to the liason officer within your local Fire Service many of their road safety officers run workshops for people seen on HH phones

_________________
now retired

Can you reference that please, presumably from their website or a respected rep of theirs somewhere? I'd like to see it for myself and question their reason

I tried but the Fire Service Station had burnt down; a toaster or something so I was told...

Misrepresentation!

_________________
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.

U-turn





My god, I think he's got it! Not only this, but a law under which those undertaking an entirely safe activity, under circumstances where it remained completely safe, would not be indefensibly criminalised to the same degree as those undertaking it in circumstances where it endangered themselves and others.

Might be another parallel to the speed argument there...

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I don't mind the seatbelt law. It makes my loved ones buckle up. My dad may well not be here if it wasn't law to wear a seatbelt for instance, and it's highly unlikely he would have warn one, being one of those that complained about it being made law.

Yeah, it's clear that those that can do it (and that's very debatable) should understand why there in laws in place to prevent it being done and respect them.

Hah, I'd advise you not to jump on that bandwagon too quickly weepej; you should know better than to think that I'd make a statement like that without anticipating your inevitable response!

Care to answer any of the questions you've dodged in the meantime?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I've stated my case in several different ways and countered all your arguments, and really don't want to get into silly games of reductio ad absurdum.

But it could be (and indeed has been) argued that selecting a safe speed for the conditions within the speed limit is part of the driving task and that therefore, staying within the speed limit is also part of the driving task. We routinely do lots of things that are not "part of the driving task" (listen to the radio, scoff the odd wine gum, admire the view, open the sunroof...). We can chat all day on our CBs or taxi radios too - with impunity. So why the particular downer on hand-held mobiles?