Using mobile phone when stopped/parked
Discussion
surveyor said:
Yes I do. Hands free obviously.
And you know what? I have not crashed into a nun, a child or anything else.... I must be god.
Isn't that one of the more common claims that drink drivers use when justifying their actions, along the lines of "I don't need to wear a seatbelt because I've never crashed"? i.e. it's just a nonsensical comment to make.And you know what? I have not crashed into a nun, a child or anything else.... I must be god.
Phatboy317 said:
Vipers said:
Paying attention you say, like me driving in L2 at about 30 mph in a 40 zone just having slowed to negotiate a roundabout and about to pass a bus and a small truck who were both in L1, when without warning or indicator, the truck decides to pull straight out to pass the bus.
In your case it may well have been entirely without warning, but in my experience things rarely happen without some warning, and it's there where attention and anticipation are invaluable.I daresay that you did half-expect it to happen, though?
Vipers said:
....there will always be those who will argue till you're blue in the face, holding a hand phone conversation is perfectly safe whilst driving, while those in the other camp will disagree. Such is life.
I think what some of us are saying is that there are times when one can safely use a phone while driving (even hand-held), and other times when it would not be safe. We need to recognise the difference, and be sensible.It is quite right that the dangers should be acknowledged by all of us, but we should then be left to make our own judgements about what we can safely do, based on our own capabilities and the particular circumstances at the time. Obviously people will, at times, make mistakes and there will be bad ouitcomes, but on the whole I think we should accept that, and try to keep these bad incidents to a minimum. It would not give a perfect answer, but neither will the attempt to completely ban certain activities.
Edited by p1esk on Wednesday 17th December 12:07
Nigel Worc's said:
I use my phone whilst driving, sometimes whilst smoking or glancing at the sat nav, and I've been known to change gear too.
Am I off your Christmas card list ?
I assume you are not sorting out a cure for cancer of peace in the Middle east when you drive while chatting on a mobile. You are choosing to distract yourself to the same degree as a drunk driver. Drunk drivers are scum, so is anyone who plays with their mobile when they should be concentrating on guiding a ton of metal around vulnerable road users. Nothing is so important that it can't wait.Am I off your Christmas card list ?
staniland said:
Nigel Worc's said:
I use my phone whilst driving, sometimes whilst smoking or glancing at the sat nav, and I've been known to change gear too.
Am I off your Christmas card list ?
I assume you are not sorting out a cure for cancer of peace in the Middle east when you drive while chatting on a mobile. You are choosing to distract yourself to the same degree as a drunk driver. Drunk drivers are scum, so is anyone who plays with their mobile when they should be concentrating on guiding a ton of metal around vulnerable road users. Nothing is so important that it can't wait.Am I off your Christmas card list ?
Frankly I don't believe the statistics that you want to rely upon - otherwise it would have been banned by now. Drivel put out by campaigners does not work - needs some genuinely independent work which not only looks at the accidents, but also at the non-accidents etc.
Thing with number is anyone can prove whatever they set-out to.
agtlaw said:
Department of Transport said this when making the then new regulation in 2003:
"Driving
3. The consultation document suggested that the proposed offence should apply unless the driver was parked with the engine switched off. Some respondents felt this was unreasonable and would prevent drivers using their phones while caught in a traffic jam.
4. We consider that drivers should not use hand-held phones while at traffic lights or during short hold-ups that may occur during a typical journey. However, we accept the view that it is unnecessary for a vehicle to be parked with the engine switched off in order to avoid prosecution. Under existing law a person may be regarded as "driving" a vehicle while the engine is running and the vehicle is stationary. We consider this satisfactory for the purposes of this offence and will not therefore include a new definition of "driving" in the regulation."
Derek's comments about drink driving 'in charge' offences are not particularly relevant or helpful in the context of using a mobile phone whilst driving.
Are you suggesting that the word driving has two legal definitions?"Driving
3. The consultation document suggested that the proposed offence should apply unless the driver was parked with the engine switched off. Some respondents felt this was unreasonable and would prevent drivers using their phones while caught in a traffic jam.
4. We consider that drivers should not use hand-held phones while at traffic lights or during short hold-ups that may occur during a typical journey. However, we accept the view that it is unnecessary for a vehicle to be parked with the engine switched off in order to avoid prosecution. Under existing law a person may be regarded as "driving" a vehicle while the engine is running and the vehicle is stationary. We consider this satisfactory for the purposes of this offence and will not therefore include a new definition of "driving" in the regulation."
Derek's comments about drink driving 'in charge' offences are not particularly relevant or helpful in the context of using a mobile phone whilst driving.
Further, it is all very well quoting the legislators intention but, as everyone knows, this has little or no bearing on whether an offence has been committed. If police officers prosecute drivers who are parked and using their mobile phones, and gain convictions, then suggesting that some bloke thought that would be a bad idea is not relevant.
Police work to the law (as they should) and not to comments from the legislators or some governmental dept.
We have had serving officers on here saying that the only time they would not prosecute a driver for using a mobile phone in a motor vehicle is if it was parked off the main carriageway or in a designated parking bay, with the engine off. I believe this was accepted by the local CPS. (Subject to this not being pre or post journey.)
I agree with the DoT, perhaps even going further and saying that there should be a proveable belief that the person using the phone might 'drive' - i.e. move it - whilst either using the phone or being distracted by it. But then no one cares what I think and it has no legal bearing, any more than some chap in the DoT.
I'd be very happy to see such a prosecution challenged on the grounds of this report, but the past has shown that courts tend to decide against such challenges. Intent doesn't cut much ice with courts. They go by the words (and make their own up of course).
One small point: 'in charge' is the phrase I avoided for the rather obvious reason that there is no in charge aspect in mobile phone use. Might I suggest you do so as well in order not to confuse matters.
surveyor said:
rambo19 said:
Because none of those are as bad as using the phone whilst driving.
IME, people who defend using the phone whilst driving are the ones that do it!
Yes I do. Hands free obviously. IME, people who defend using the phone whilst driving are the ones that do it!
And you know what? I have not crashed into a nun, a child or anything else.... I must be god.
rambo19 said:
surveyor said:
rambo19 said:
Because none of those are as bad as using the phone whilst driving.
IME, people who defend using the phone whilst driving are the ones that do it!
Yes I do. Hands free obviously. IME, people who defend using the phone whilst driving are the ones that do it!
And you know what? I have not crashed into a nun, a child or anything else.... I must be god.
Derek Smith said:
The problem is poor wording of the legislation.
The definition changed from the normal, accepted reason during the initial stages of drink driving legislation. Instead of changing the law when offenders tried to get away with their offending by thrusting money into the hands of lawyers, the definition of driving was extended to include stopped, and even out of the car.
If you stop your car, switch everything off, get out, sit on a nearby wall and use your mobile phone, you can still be reported for this offence.
The police should use good sense in such cases but - although we don't know the full circs of this case so can't make a decision - some do not. One problem is that some like 'rules'. On commentator on here who says he is a serving officer, reckons that it is accepted that if a car is parked in a parking area then the person is not driving. This is, of course, rubbish.
Most, the vast majority, of drivers interpret the term driving as - well - the way the vast majority of people do. However, the legal term for driving has moved well away from the accepted term. Whilst the law should interpret words in the sense in which they are commonly used, this is not always so. A field, used to grow a crop, can be premises despite there being no building, permanent or otherwise, in it. I happen to believe that, in this case unlike mobile law, the intent of the legislators' was complied with. However, if the wording doesn't quite work, then change the wording and not do some Humpty Dumpty inspired corruption of the language.
All of the above is, as usual, completely wrong in the context of using a mobile phone. Derek, try to confine yourself to drink driving 'in charge' threads if you must cut and paste your usual nonsense.The definition changed from the normal, accepted reason during the initial stages of drink driving legislation. Instead of changing the law when offenders tried to get away with their offending by thrusting money into the hands of lawyers, the definition of driving was extended to include stopped, and even out of the car.
If you stop your car, switch everything off, get out, sit on a nearby wall and use your mobile phone, you can still be reported for this offence.
The police should use good sense in such cases but - although we don't know the full circs of this case so can't make a decision - some do not. One problem is that some like 'rules'. On commentator on here who says he is a serving officer, reckons that it is accepted that if a car is parked in a parking area then the person is not driving. This is, of course, rubbish.
Most, the vast majority, of drivers interpret the term driving as - well - the way the vast majority of people do. However, the legal term for driving has moved well away from the accepted term. Whilst the law should interpret words in the sense in which they are commonly used, this is not always so. A field, used to grow a crop, can be premises despite there being no building, permanent or otherwise, in it. I happen to believe that, in this case unlike mobile law, the intent of the legislators' was complied with. However, if the wording doesn't quite work, then change the wording and not do some Humpty Dumpty inspired corruption of the language.
surveyor said:
In your opinion that is
Not at all, it's the opinion of people who have researched what affect using a mobile at the wheel has. It is a fact that drivers on mobiles now kill more young people than drunk drivers achieve in America:http://www.alertdriving.com/home/fleet-alert-magaz...
People like you, playing with their phone at the wheel.
You've admitted that you are more interested in making money for your business by chatting on a mobile while driving than paying attention. You are distracted to the same degree as drunk drivers, if you dispute the evidence then explain why.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/DrivingIssues/2006...
And we're catching up:
Road safety campaigners are warning that mobile phone distraction will become a bigger killer on the UK’s roads than drink driving by 2015.
http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2014/7/21/mobile-p...
You are CHOOSING to impair your driving ability the same as a drunk driver. Drunk drivers are worthless scum, so are drivers who CHOOSE to impair their ability. How desperate are you for money that you risk killing someone?
surveyor said:
That's a different argument. You said that legally driving and using your phone is as bad as illegally drink driving. It's not.
Correct. It's worse:Tests by scientists at the Transport Research Laboratory said drivers on mobiles had slower reaction times and stopping times than those under the influence of alcohol.
And it said hands-free kits were almost as dangerous as hand-held phones.
The research said reaction times were, on average, 30% slower when talking on a mobile than when just over the legal limit, and nearly 50% slower than when driving normally.
staniland said:
surveyor said:
In your opinion that is
Not at all, it's the opinion of people who have researched what affect using a mobile at the wheel has. It is a fact that drivers on mobiles now kill more young people than drunk drivers achieve in America:http://www.alertdriving.com/home/fleet-alert-magaz...
People like you, playing with their phone at the wheel.
You've admitted that you are more interested in making money for your business by chatting on a mobile while driving than paying attention. You are distracted to the same degree as drunk drivers, if you dispute the evidence then explain why.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/DrivingIssues/2006...
And we're catching up:
Road safety campaigners are warning that mobile phone distraction will become a bigger killer on the UK’s roads than drink driving by 2015.
http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2014/7/21/mobile-p...
You are CHOOSING to impair your driving ability the same as a drunk driver. Drunk drivers are worthless scum, so are drivers who CHOOSE to impair their ability. How desperate are you for money that you risk killing someone?
I don't play with my phone at the wheel. I use my phone legally hands free.
I'm not more interested in making money for my business (although as I'm self employed I am focused on making a profit) than paying attention. If the conservation gets so involved that it's going to be distracting I stop. If I know that I'm in for a complex phone call I stop. If I'm talking on the phone I am still paying attention to things going on around me - otherwise I would have crashed by now.
Now what I would agree is a bigger danger is texting. 9 times out of ten I see a car wandering around, someone is peering at their telephone screen.
Dr Jekyll said:
Vipers said:
Er, no. Absolutely no warning, and I don't drive half expecting everyone is about to pull out in front me me, do you?
You don't ride a bike then?staniland said:
Correct. It's worse:
Tests by scientists at the Transport Research Laboratory said drivers on mobiles had slower reaction times and stopping times than those under the influence of alcohol.
And it said hands-free kits were almost as dangerous as hand-held phones.
The research said reaction times were, on average, 30% slower when talking on a mobile than when just over the legal limit, and nearly 50% slower than when driving normally.
That sounds a bit suspect to me.Tests by scientists at the Transport Research Laboratory said drivers on mobiles had slower reaction times and stopping times than those under the influence of alcohol.
And it said hands-free kits were almost as dangerous as hand-held phones.
The research said reaction times were, on average, 30% slower when talking on a mobile than when just over the legal limit, and nearly 50% slower than when driving normally.
Let's say an average reaction time is 250ms.
They say being on a phone is 50% slower, so 375ms. (probably still quicker than a 75 year old in their Micra)
They then say being on a phone is 30% slower than being drunk. Therefore the 'being drunk' reaction time must be 290ms.
If being drunk only increases reaction time by 0.04 seconds, I don't understand why the drink drive limit it so low!
I wonder what the reaction time is of someone finding their fags, finding their lighter, lighting the fag and then putting the fags/lighter away.
I bet we're talking nearer seconds than fractions of a second.
I'm not saying using your phone while driving is a good idea. That would be nonsense.
I'm just saying I think a lot of these statistics are questionable, and for all the fuss made about using a phone while driving I bet you could equally prove that things like smoking, changing a cd, or talking to screaming kids is just as distracting, if not worse.
They say using your phone increases your reaction timme by 0.125 seconds, but think about how long you look at the radio when you change stations.
Disclaimer: Before I get pounced on by the anti-phone brigade, my car has hands free, but even then I hardly ever use it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff