1st March - 6points for mobile phone use at the wheel

[raspy]

The other thing to note about the change to the law is that it's primarily aimed at changing the behaviour of young drivers (17-24) who not only check their phones far more frequently than older people, but are also more likely to be open to have their behaviour modified. (I'm thinking of older people who are set in their ways. I know many who have driven for 15+ years whilst texting/holding phone for a call who claim that because they are experienced drivers and have never had a crash, they are not distracted)

[speedking31]

raspy said:

Whilst today, the the police needs humans to observe you using your phone, that might at some point no longer be a limitation.

... I think this is an incredible achievement.

The act of using a phone while driving might be easier to police in the future, if new technology designed to identify offenders using speed cameras bears fruit.

But why develop such a system that has to be able to differentiate between eating a Marathon, or holding a cigarette packet, and using the phone, to solve 0.4% of accidents, when it would be far easier to develop and deploy a system to detect tailgating, or pulling out of a junction while not leaving enough room for an approaching vehicle, which are responsible for many more RTAs?

[pingu393]

raspy said:

I know many who have driven for 15+ years whilst texting/holding phone for a call who claim that because they are experienced drivers and have never had a crash, they are not distracted

If they weren't distracted, why didn't they spot the BiB who caught them?

QED

[supercommuter]

speedking31 said:

supercommuter said:

Sorry but anyone defending using a mobile phone is a grade A bellend.

The amount of dicks I see swerving lanes because they are scrolling through some st social media in the morning is unreal. As i said before people should get an on the spot ban if you have your phone in your hand. 6 weeks would do nicely.

Driving without due care and attention covers those situations, including similar driving as the result of eating, smoking, changing a cassette, operating a satnav, getting something out of the glovebox, etc. Why would you want to single out handheld mobile phone use with a specific offence? Are you happy to see those others swerving about the road?

I am singling them out because it is what this thread is about. I wasn't going to come in here and start talking about someone cutting up a bread stick was I.

Yes, If you are swerving around like a dick in traffic and endangering other peoples lives because you are doing something else - ban, 6 weeks. Done.

Using a mobile phone is clear cut to prove and is not open to interpretation by a man of the law.

[jaf01uk]

supercommuter said:

Using a mobile phone is clear cut to prove and is not open to interpretation by a man of the law.

So I am driving along or parked at lights with my elbow on the window and hand by my ear or even scratching my ear and I get spotted by a cop? interpretation means I get stuck with a ticket for no reason, there are many many cases of this been reported, even some where there was no phone in the car.......

[supercommuter]

jaf01uk said:

supercommuter said:

Using a mobile phone is clear cut to prove and is not open to interpretation by a man of the law.

So I am driving along or parked at lights with my elbow on the window and hand by my ear or even scratching my ear and I get spotted by a cop? interpretation means I get stuck with a ticket for no reason, there are many many cases of this been reported, even some where there was no phone in the car.......

Have you been done for using a phone whilst driving? They check your phone to see if you were texting or on a call.

My proposed extreme rule would have no variable on it being open to interpretation, so it is fairly irrelevant. I would assume to court it would go.

[Adrian W]

supercommuter said:

Have you been done for using a phone whilst driving? They check your phone to see if you were texting or on a call.

My proposed extreme rule would have no variable on it being open to interpretation, so it is fairly irrelevant. I would assume to court it would go.

No It wouldn't, unfortunately if you are found not guilty you cannot recover your defence costs, this puts pleading not guilty out of most peoples reach.

And yes I do have personal experience of this.

[raspy]

speedking31 said:

ut why develop such a system that has to be able to differentiate between eating a Marathon, or holding a cigarette packet, and using the phone, to solve 0.4% of accidents, when it would be far easier to develop and deploy a system to detect tailgating, or pulling out of a junction while not leaving enough room for an approaching vehicle, which are responsible for many more RTAs?

Your logic is most sound. I don't understand why they are not tackling the behaviours causing many more RTAs. Who knows what the real agenda is here?

[SS2.]

supercommuter said:

Have you been done for using a phone whilst driving? They check your phone to see if you were texting or on a call.

Who does ?

Edited by SS2. on Thursday 2nd March 19:14

[jaf01uk]

supercommuter said:

jaf01uk said:

supercommuter said:

Using a mobile phone is clear cut to prove and is not open to interpretation by a man of the law.

So I am driving along or parked at lights with my elbow on the window and hand by my ear or even scratching my ear and I get spotted by a cop? interpretation means I get stuck with a ticket for no reason, there are many many cases of this been reported, even some where there was no phone in the car.......

Have you been done for using a phone whilst driving? They check your phone to see if you were texting or on a call.

My proposed extreme rule would have no variable on it being open to interpretation, so it is fairly irrelevant. I would assume to court it would go.

No I have never been done for a phone offence buy I have seen a number of incidences in here and various other places of cops deciding you were on the phone and refused to check (they never admit they might have been mistaken), in one case the guy didn't even have a phone in the car but how do you prove a negative? Tricky one but one I agree with, too many youngsters hooked on screens.................

[Penfolds]

pingu393 said:

21TonyK said:

For clarity, on the Tv this morning they had a PC who said "don't touch your phone if your engine is running". Others have said "in motion".

Now I get the "in motion" bit, that's obvious and maybe sat at the lights but what about parked up, engine running and how does the auto stop-start come in to it? If I stop at the lights the engine stops as well. I'm not in motion and my engine is off?

All a bit hypothetical as I don't use a phone anyway.

You are in control of the vehicle, so legislation applies. Stop-Start is controlled by the driver.


More interesting would be if someone were obviously legally parked, but with the engine running and using a hand-held mobile phone. I suspect the legislation applies. They would be crucified if they didn't have their seat belt on as well .

Had to deal with an arsey policeman today while parked up, handbrake on, car out of gear, but engine running. I was checking a couple of messages on my phone before setting off and he came over to the window threatening to give me 6 points for using my phone while in control of a vehicle. Pretty stupid if you ask me, but "luckily" he just let me off with a warning and a bemusing lecture.

[nish81]

Penfolds said:

Had to deal with an arsey policeman today while parked up, handbrake on, car out of gear, but engine running. I was checking a couple of messages on my phone before setting off and he came over to the window threatening to give me 6 points for using my phone while in control of a vehicle. Pretty stupid if you ask me, but "luckily" he just let me off with a warning and a bemusing lecture.

This is very strange because the government's own website says handheld phone use when 'safely parked' is fine:

https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-drivin...

[nish81]

Also, it appears that it is fine to use a phone if it's secured by a cradle as it is not 'hand held' in that case? Pretty glaring loophole

[SS2.]

nish81 said:

Also, it appears that it is fine to use a phone if it's secured by a cradle as it is not 'hand held' in that case? Pretty glaring loophole

Loophole ? You seem to be implying that parliament completely overlooked hands-free use when they were drafting the mobile phone legislation ?

[speedking31]

nish81 said:

This is very strange because the government's own website says handheld phone use when 'safely parked' is fine:

https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-drivin...

But the HC description of parked includes "•you MUST switch off the engine,", so it appears to me that the policeman was correct and could have dealt out 6 points.

[raspy]

speedking31 said:

ut the HC description of parked includes "•you MUST switch off the engine,", so it appears to me that the policeman was correct and could have dealt out 6 points.

If you have a hybrid/EV and there is no sound of the engine running when you are parked up, how would the officer know from afar that your car has actually been started?

[ashleyman]

I understand and agree that phone use at the wheel is dangerous and deserves penalty.

But, I can't say I agree with the current state of affairs around policing it. For example, imagine I was looking at a piece of paper that had written down instructions of my journey and final destination whilst on the phone using my cars handsfree.

For whatever reason this was mistaken for me holding and using a mobile phone by a passing Police officer. I was then pulled over and accused of being on the phone. I make my defence and show the paper but they ask to see my phone and see that I was on a call a few minutes previously.

I know I wasn't on the phone. The Police officer accuses me of being on the phone. What happens then? Well, I'm more likely to be prosecuted for something I am not guilty of.

Yes, I know there is more to the given situation, shouldn't have been looking at a paper etc... but we're talking about the general public here not driving Gods.

It frightens me that a Police officer can make an accusation and it goes ahead and I get points/fine.

[Adrian W]

ashleyman said:

I understand and agree that phone use at the wheel is dangerous and deserves penalty.

But, I can't say I agree with the current state of affairs around policing it. For example, imagine I was looking at a piece of paper that had written down instructions of my journey and final destination whilst on the phone using my cars handsfree.

For whatever reason this was mistaken for me holding and using a mobile phone by a passing Police officer. I was then pulled over and accused of being on the phone. I make my defence and show the paper but they ask to see my phone and see that I was on a call a few minutes previously.

I know I wasn't on the phone. The Police officer accuses me of being on the phone. What happens then? Well, I'm more likely to be prosecuted for something I am not guilty of.

Yes, I know there is more to the given situation, shouldn't have been looking at a paper etc... but we're talking about the general public here not driving Gods.

It frightens me that a Police officer can make an accusation and it goes ahead and I get points/fine.

This is going to happen more and more, even if you can absolutely prove beyond any doubt that you were not touching or using the phone, it will not be financially viable to defend it, unless of course if you are already on six points. whoever gets the money must be rubbing their hands together.

[croyde]

I do think that the ban of a new driver is trying to address what is becoming an addiction epidemic amongst the young and not so young.

I spent some time commuting the freeways of LA last year and the amount of collisions in slow traffic which appeared to be due to the fact that Californians think that actually looking where you are going is secondary to checking social media.

My girlfriend at the time would have her bag of stuff on the front seat next to her so she could do everything but actually concentrate on driving. I found it shockingly disturbing.

I read a lot on Mustang6g and it does appear common for new US Mustangs to be wrecked by being rear ended by usually a young teenage girl far to busy tweeting than driving.

Funnily enough my Mustang over here has only got 2 NCAP stars mainly due to it not having the options of lane departure, radar cruise and all the other 'safety' aids of a 21st century car.

But I believe that all these driver aids are making the average moronic driver even more useless as they expect to be saved from their own stupidity.

[Engineer792]

speedking31 said:

nish81 said:

This is very strange because the government's own website says handheld phone use when 'safely parked' is fine:

https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-drivin...

But the HC description of parked includes "•you MUST switch off the engine,", so it appears to me that the policeman was correct and could have dealt out 6 points.

Yes, 6 points could have been dealt out, but would justice have been served?

Whether or not it's in the public interest should be the final arbiter in the decision to prosecute, not whether or not it fell just on the wrong side of some strict legal definition.

Strictly speaking, you could be prosecuted for getting into your car and starting the engine before putting your mobile in its cradle.