Safe Speed Forums

I can't agree with this I'm afraid.

Firstly, this will alienate and distance the Police from the public even further. Secondly, where would the "different" rules stop? Thirdly, you say one rule for the "untrained" ... Well, what if we get trained? Can we then have equivalency to the Police? They are physiologically the same as us.

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

Ultimately it becomes a question of managing the risk and another of need.
The police need the authority to make the professional decision to drive outwith the law, the general public doesn't, although they may want it.
If it then becomes a question of 'us' and 'them' then I suggest that this is more a failing of the 'I want' mentality that is so sadly prevelant today than it is the actual powers given to the police. There are some things in life that we want but cannot have; gun nuts might want the power to carry handguns because the police do at times, etc etc. Keeping the risk low by giving authority to a small group of trained, accountable professionals is quite right and manageable; letting the public loose even after training would be ridiculous and unmanageable, whatever contrived scheme one comes up with to demonstrate that this might not be the case.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Two threads here now!!

1: In theory the police should have operational rules that are different from ours however, that should only be the case when the current speed hypocrisy has ended.

2: Peter E I understand your point but I think a vigorous campaign against mobile phones under existing laws should have been entered into. We have far to many laws as it is. I would scrap it (not that I'd get the chance) Mind you I think that speeding could also be quite adequately covered by 'Dangerous' and 'Careless' laws.

Not necessarily. TripleS suggested that a police officer he'd viewed on TV was not in control of his vehicle (the basic accusation aimed at handheld mobile phone users) because he was multi-tasking.
He appeared to be suggesting that if Joe Public isn't permitted to use a handheld mobile for control reasons, the that police officer wasn't in control and should be subject to the same rules. I say this is wrong for reasons postulated above.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I think the real problem arises because of differences in the degree of discretion applied. No one in their right mind would suggest that Police on way to a knife attack should obey speed limits.

But the public need intelligent law enforcement too. We're pissed off with discretionless enforcement while the Police appear to receive oodles of discretion - especially in Essex.

After all, before cameras did we ever hear of a problem? I don't think so...

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

The police officer I saw was in control of his vehicle to the extent that he did not have an accident, but IMHO he was overloading himself. He was extremely busy with the single handed steering and it all looked a bit too frantic to me. I would say he was not in proper control, just as normal drivers have been accused of being.

I have great admiration for police advanced drivers, in fact they are they only group that I regard as truly advanced drivers, though I accept this will surely be a minority view. Even so, there are limits to what they can do while still maintaining a proper safety standard, and in this case I think the safety standard was being jeopardised.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

OK, so that officer was not in proper control in which case he should have faced an enquiry into his actions perhaps?
However, if a police officer demonstrates such lax control on camera, then surely this is all the more reason to impose a mobile phone ban on Joe Public who, by and large, are far less capable and far more likely to make decisions centred around their immediate needs than a police officer?
A we must remember, this law must apply across the whole population, it cannot be applied individually.

Coincidental aside: Was returning home down the M6 today after picking up my daughter from Uni in Preston when I passed a Merc in L1 travelling at about 54 mph (an HGV had just passed it and was pulling away) with the driver nattering away on her handheld I'm sure the chap in the passenger seat of the Vectra behind me took her photo - the driver slowed as he passed her and the passenger was looking down into a gadget as if checking the photo as they passed me.
Another clue was that the merc driver went ape, flashings her light as she roared after the Vectra Goodness only knows what she planned to do when she caught up......????? Conversation couldn't have been that important though if she was able to end it and chase another car instead
They dissapeared around a corner with the Merc tailgating the Vectra.

Hmm, some folk I know have been known to make videos of road journeys - see http://www.cbrd.co.uk/media/video/

That could provoke an interesting reaction - they already find that surrounding traffic often seems to drive in an unusually sedate manner...

Someone else took a photo in the Mersey Tunnel and the flash went off, which another driver seemed to misinterpret as a Gatso

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Given that the police driver achieved his objective, and there was no shunt, I see no likelihood of anyone launching any kind of investigation into the incident, let alone taking any action against the police driver. I'm not concerned about that, as I have no wish to see him hauled over the coals for that particular incident.

What I saw on TV in that pursuit does not to my mind reinforce the case for a blanket law against the use of hand held mobile phones by normal drivers. I see nothing wrong with drivers using hand held mobile phones, (apart from it being illegal) so long as they confine it to situations where they can cope with it without detriment to safe driving. In principle it is only the same as speeding. If you do it properly, there is no safety problem, and that's all I'm bothered about.

If a law is really necessary and sensibly enforced, probably it should apply across the whole population. Unfortunately at the moment we seem to have various laws that are not regarded as sensible by the driving community, and they are being widely ignored as a result. Laws against speeding, and the use of mobile phones, are both apparently being questioned by drivers, and rightly so in my view.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Sure. In fact, the more we get side tracked into talking about this event the less relevant to the use of mobile phones it appears, and the more I wonder why it was brought up in the first place



For what its worth, my own internal jury is still out on the subject of the mobile phone law. On the one hand I personally witness enough incidents of erratic driving by people who, it turns out, are using a mobile phone to suggest to me that folks in general cannot be trusted to decide impartially and sensibly when it is safe to do so. If this were not the case then I'd share your view.
And lets not get sidetracked down the old 'whats the difference between a mobile and doing blah' route. Mobile phones have a demonstrable effect on peoples ability to concentrate on driving, and furthermore have taken over our lives like nothing else except the car itself. The urge to use the thing improperly has created one of the biggest social annoyance of our time; put a mobile phone slave in a car and you can have the potential for a deadly mix. And as for using it properly, when do you find out someone has done it improperly? When an innocent party gets killed perhaps? Is a bloody phone call worth finding out? Emotive, yes sorry but its also real life.
On the other hand, the law has proven to be almost useless and widely ignored, in fact the only use I can really see for it is to call it up as an aggravating factor if someone has a crash whilst using one of the flamin' things

I think that I'm with you on this one.

Personal view...

I've used mobile phones since the old "electric handbag" days and always had hands-free kits fitted to my cars, I've never used a hand-held in the car... About 5 or so years ago I started to notice that if I used the phone while driving, chunks of the journey started to "disappear" - rather like the disturbing "driving on autopilot" effect that can set in on mundane routine trips - I didn't have any accidents or near-misses but it concerned me that obviously my concentration wasn't up to scratch. It might be one of the effects of encroaching old-age, but I don't seriously think so as I can still drive very long distances without concentration problems. So, I gave up using the phone in the car altogether - I leave it switched on, but in the boot or glovebox out of reach.

From observation of other road users, it's becoming an increasingly common sight to see scenes of complete pratishness performed by clowns with telephones clamped to their ear'oles. In my opinion, nothing is so desperately important that it won't wait for a few minutes until you either get to where you're going or find somewhere safe to stop.

COAST and mobile phones are not good bedfellows.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

The law may be widely ignored, but if there was no law it would have been widely perceived as a signal from government that hand-held mobile use was OK so long as you were careful, and the problem would be far more widespread.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I tend to agree, a law explicitly banning mobile phones creates an specific offence, whereas the old 'careless driving' law is a little more difficult to pin down.



Correct, and lets remind ourselves that these clowns are mostly aware of the law that prohibits what they are doing!
Ultimately, I'm sure that there are people who don't fall into this category, but unfortunately we cannot have a 'suits you sir' law tailor made to fit each individuals own abilities and needs. Its one for all and all for one I'm afraid.

OK gents so we still have different opinions on this.

I still believe the hand held mobile phone law was unnecessary. It was an over-reaction in my view. So far as I am aware, in terms of overall road safety the use of mobile phones by drivers has not been significant.

Perhaps we can agree to differ.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I spoke to Herts Police shortly before the law came into Force (was working in St Albans at the time and Essex Police didn't have a clue, that's what happens when it all gets parcelled of to untrained civillians). The trafpol officer I spoke to said as far as he was concerned it would make no difference as they were already prosecuting driver under the 'due car and attention' requirement. He felt it was more of a PR stunt than something that made it easier to enforce road safety !!

Paul: "But the public need intelligent law enforcement too. We're pissed off with discretionless enforcement while the Police appear to receive oodles of discretion - especially in Essex. "

In Essex - Surely not ????? ROTFLMAO

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

theres something bothering me and i was wondering if somebody who know the law could clear it up for me...

Nokia do a base station for mobile offices that you plug a standard phone into and you can use it anywhere where you cant get a phone line.

so could you have a standard house phone (maybe a cordless) pinned to your ear and still not be breaking the law? Surely its fine becasue you dont actually have the mobile phone in your hand...

I personally have only really used my phone while im driving a few times. Mainly for phoning 999 to tell them about debris on the motorway. I wouldnt get in trouble for this would I?

Tim

Timfishy: "so could you have a standard house phone (maybe a cordless) pinned to your ear and still not be breaking the law? Surely its fine becasue you dont actually have the mobile phone in your hand...

I personally have only really used my phone while im driving a few times. Mainly for phoning 999 to tell them about debris on the motorway. I wouldnt get in trouble for this would I?"

If you have to take your hands of teh wheel to pick it up and pin it to your ear, yes !

There is the '999' clause, where in theory you are exempt from the legislation if the call is an emergency and by emergency they mean call to '999'.

The trafpoll I spoe to at Herts. plice was dubious as his personal feeling was that in areas with as he put it 'proper' policing the discretion would be applied, in areas that relied on automated or very strict 'by the book' enforcement then you would have to go to court and argue the case.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm

I believe the problem with having a corded phone would be defining "the device".
A corded phone plugged in to the mobile phone adaptor is arguably one device. (However a corded phone plugged in to an amateur or CB radio would be legal)

I believe that a cordless phone for home use would be legal to use as it does not operate on any of the listed frequencies.

To call the emergency services legally while driving you have to call them on 999 or 112, be calling because of a genuine emergency (where is the definition...?) and it not be safe/practical to stop.

Of course you can probably still be done for driving without due care and attention, or whatever they would have used before this silly law was passed.

_________________
Andrew.

Diomestic cordless phones legal for use in the UK don't have the range - you can get illegal imported ones -- think what is being talked about here is similar to the BT Fusion( try bt.com) ---sort of hybrid - in range of a base station work through landline: out of range of base station become mobile on one of the mobile frequencies

Corded phone in CB/Amature radio - possible but a lot of work --not least getting the line voltage through some sort of transmission bridge --apart from the 2 - 4 wire conversion

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

No no, Nokia do a GSM terminal with a standard BT jack on it. Very rare and designed for houses with no land line. I am asuming a cordless phone base station in the car connected to the Nokia box.

Nokia 32 - This is a new version of the one I saw years ago. Aimed at cheaper GSM calls but looks like it does basically the same thing.


Well it depends, you might only use the handset which has 4 wires, two for mic and 2 for speaker. This would be hand-held but 'legal' to use.

_________________
Andrew.