Using phone driving to increase to 6 points & £200 fine
Discussion
SS2. said:
It isn't. But why let the facts get in the way of a good 'discussion' ?
Ugh, this is hard work. If you know the number, then please tell us.
If it makes you more comfortable, use the number 400, or 600, or 3.
When we're dealing with numbers so very small, it doesn't really matter what the actual figure is. We know that the total number killed on the roads was 1735 (or thereabouts). It's perfectly sensible to assess that not all of them were killed because of mobile phone use. Perhaps half? Maybe 25%? 10%? So the number is somewhere between 175 and 850 people killed. Take a worst case scenario.
The substantive question STILL remains (although you seem reluctant to discuss it. That's fine, just don't click on the thread), is X number of lives/year a price worth paying for being able to do those things with a mobile phone which we are presently prevented from doing?
ferrariF50lover said:
SS2. said:
It isn't. But why let the facts get in the way of a good 'discussion' ?
Ugh, this is hard work. If you know the number, then please tell us.
If it makes you more comfortable, use the number 400, or 600, or 3.
When we're dealing with numbers so very small, it doesn't really matter what the actual figure is. We know that the total number killed on the roads was 1735 (or thereabouts). It's perfectly sensible to assess that not all of them were killed because of mobile phone use. Perhaps half? Maybe 25%? 10%? So the number is somewhere between 175 and 850 people killed. Take a worst case scenario.
The substantive question STILL remains (although you seem reluctant to discuss it. That's fine, just don't click on the thread), is X number of lives/year a price worth paying for being able to do those things with a mobile phone which we are presently prevented from doing?
If you are going to make estimates at least spend a few minutes ensuring that they are even vaguely accurate.
Edited by caelite on Tuesday 20th September 21:28
That is surprising. Extraordinarily surprising. My estimate was way out.
22 deaths a year? Peanuts kill more people than that and peanuts are MUCH less useful than using your phone while driving.
Turns out I was right earlier when I suggested that if everyone does it all the time and we only lose a tiny number of people to it (an extremely tiny number) it really can't be all that dangerous.
22 deaths a year? Peanuts kill more people than that and peanuts are MUCH less useful than using your phone while driving.
Turns out I was right earlier when I suggested that if everyone does it all the time and we only lose a tiny number of people to it (an extremely tiny number) it really can't be all that dangerous.
Have a think for a moment, is anyone going to actually say "I was messing around on facebook when I ran over little Jimmy"?
It'll be "oh, he just suddenly appeared in front of me." or "I couldn't see because the sun was in my eyes"*.
Cars are capable of traveling a huge distance when you spend even a few seconds glancing at a screen.
It'll be "oh, he just suddenly appeared in front of me." or "I couldn't see because the sun was in my eyes"*.
Cars are capable of traveling a huge distance when you spend even a few seconds glancing at a screen.
- Which is one of the most feeble excuses ever.
ferrariF50lover said:
We know that the total number killed on the roads was 1735 (or thereabouts). It's perfectly sensible to assess that not all of them were killed because of mobile phone use. Perhaps half? Maybe 25%? 10%? So the number is somewhere between 175 and 850 people killed.
ferrariF50lover said:
My estimate was way out.
Just a bit.ferrariF50lover said:
That is surprising. Extraordinarily surprising. My estimate was way out.
22 deaths a year? Peanuts kill more people than that and peanuts are MUCH less useful than using your phone while driving.
Turns out I was right earlier when I suggested that if everyone does it all the time and we only lose a tiny number of people to it (an extremely tiny number) it really can't be all that dangerous.
Thanks for understanding the point I was making and changing your tone. However the real big issue with it IS the latter point you made of 'how much is too much'. Its all fine and well making a logical argument stating that the amount of deaths caused by mobile use is too low to really merit a crackdown (although i will admit there is probably a larger amount of more minor accidents caused by it). However there is always those who will use the emotive argument of '1 death is too much', and the issue is is those using this emotive argument are all too ready to wheel out the grieving mothers making it a very difficult argument to go against. 22 deaths a year? Peanuts kill more people than that and peanuts are MUCH less useful than using your phone while driving.
Turns out I was right earlier when I suggested that if everyone does it all the time and we only lose a tiny number of people to it (an extremely tiny number) it really can't be all that dangerous.
Our politicians dont listen to statistics. Our politicians listen to pressure groups and grieving mothers as it makes there jobs easy, if they cite statistics & logic and come off as cold then people wont vote for them.
Its this reason that the BRAKE nimbys are so successful. It is really easy for them to argue the case for lower limits as there is always 17 year olds driving into walls at twice the limit that they can cite to provoke emotional responses, even where statistics say unrealisticly low limits increase accident rates.
Edited by caelite on Tuesday 20th September 21:37
caelite said:
Im 23 and myself and most of my friends use whatsapp for free messaging, we tend to use the term whatsapp-ing or texting interchangeably. Get with the times gramps! 
Ok, I'll admit defeat on this one. I shall purchase some slippers and a pipe and settle down to The Archers (I already quite like The Archers actually...oh dear).ferrariF50lover said:
22 deaths a year? Peanuts kill more people than that and peanuts are MUCH less useful than using your phone while driving.
How many people who don't even eat f
king peanuts are killed by other people eating peanuts? If people on hand held phones only killed themselves, I'd have no problem with it.TwigtheWonderkid said:
ferrariF50lover said:
22 deaths a year? Peanuts kill more people than that and peanuts are MUCH less useful than using your phone while driving.
How many people who don't even eat fking peanuts are killed by other people eating peanuts? If people on hand held phones only killed themselves, I'd have no problem with it.So yes peanut exposure from 3rd parties kills 7 or 8 each year, there is no legislation officially for it but many schools 'ban' it on there premesis. Sadly parents and workers arnt as easy to fine as motorists so there is no £80 fine for that which would be relative to the £200 for mobile usage killing ~22 a year.
Edited by caelite on Wednesday 21st September 00:14
Good news I guess but where does it stop? There is already talk of stopping people using phones full stop in cars even hands-free. And after that? No eating / drinking etc. It's the usual thin end of the wedge, something comes in that is genuinely "good news" such as non use of mobiles whilst driving which is then used to batter people for other things which are generally of no consequence 
TX.
PS we know the end game, autonomous cars and people banned from driving. You heard it here first
TX.
PS we know the end game, autonomous cars and people banned from driving. You heard it here first
Terminator X said:
Good news I guess but where does it stop? There is already talk of stopping people using phones full stop in cars even hands-free. And after that? No eating / drinking etc. It's the usual thin end of the wedge, something comes in that is genuinely "good news" such as non use of mobiles whilst driving which is then used to batter people for other things which are generally of no consequence
TX.
PS we know the end game, autonomous cars and people banned from driving. You heard it here first
Tinfoil hats.....roll up roll up, get 'em here.TX.
PS we know the end game, autonomous cars and people banned from driving. You heard it here first
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Terminator X said:
Good news I guess but where does it stop? There is already talk of stopping people using phones full stop in cars even hands-free. And after that? No eating / drinking etc. It's the usual thin end of the wedge, something comes in that is genuinely "good news" such as non use of mobiles whilst driving which is then used to batter people for other things which are generally of no consequence
TX.
PS we know the end game, autonomous cars and people banned from driving. You heard it here first
Tinfoil hats.....roll up roll up, get 'em here.TX.
PS we know the end game, autonomous cars and people banned from driving. You heard it here first
TX.
Terminator X said:
Good news I guess but where does it stop? There is already talk of stopping people using phones full stop in cars even hands-free. And after that? No eating / drinking etc. It's the usual thin end of the wedge, something comes in that is genuinely "good news" such as non use of mobiles whilst driving which is then used to batter people for other things which are generally of no consequence
TX.
PS we know the end game, autonomous cars and people banned from driving. You heard it here first
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slopeTX.
PS we know the end game, autonomous cars and people banned from driving. You heard it here first
Devil2575 said:
Terminator X said:
Good news I guess but where does it stop? There is already talk of stopping people using phones full stop in cars even hands-free. And after that? No eating / drinking etc. It's the usual thin end of the wedge, something comes in that is genuinely "good news" such as non use of mobiles whilst driving which is then used to batter people for other things which are generally of no consequence
TX.
PS we know the end game, autonomous cars and people banned from driving. You heard it here first
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slopeTX.
PS we know the end game, autonomous cars and people banned from driving. You heard it here first
TX.
Terminator X said:
Devil2575 said:
Terminator X said:
Good news I guess but where does it stop? There is already talk of stopping people using phones full stop in cars even hands-free. And after that? No eating / drinking etc. It's the usual thin end of the wedge, something comes in that is genuinely "good news" such as non use of mobiles whilst driving which is then used to batter people for other things which are generally of no consequence
TX.
PS we know the end game, autonomous cars and people banned from driving. You heard it here first
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slopeTX.
PS we know the end game, autonomous cars and people banned from driving. You heard it here first
TX.
To use the CCTV analogy you need to demonstrate that one led to the other. Is CCTV used for speeding fines? Surely that is speed cameras and I'm not sure that they didn't precede town centre CCTV. It's also a different situation and you can't use the fact that something happened in one situation as evidence that it is likely to happen in a competely different situation. To do so is a bit like saying "Tony Blair lied about WMD in Iraq therefore it is likely that Cameron lied about Syria".
Lets hope they clarify the legislation so that stopped in a safe place is acceptable, regardless of if engine is running.
Got told off and threatened by a cop for being on the phone in a car park on a snowy winter morning because the engine was running.
Don't know if he was being a moron or serious.
If they want to be pedantic about the engine being running, even in a safe place, then theyd have to prosecute people sitting in drive throughs while getting cash out, while collecting the food and often if eating while parked up and the engine is running.
Got told off and threatened by a cop for being on the phone in a car park on a snowy winter morning because the engine was running.
Don't know if he was being a moron or serious.
If they want to be pedantic about the engine being running, even in a safe place, then theyd have to prosecute people sitting in drive throughs while getting cash out, while collecting the food and often if eating while parked up and the engine is running.
Psycho Warren said:
Lets hope they clarify the legislation so that stopped in a safe place is acceptable, regardless of if engine is running.
Got told off and threatened by a cop for being on the phone in a car park on a snowy winter morning because the engine was running.
Don't know if he was being a moron or serious.
If they want to be pedantic about the engine being running, even in a safe place, then theyd have to prosecute people sitting in drive throughs while getting cash out, while collecting the food and often if eating while parked up and the engine is running.
If engine running its an offence.Got told off and threatened by a cop for being on the phone in a car park on a snowy winter morning because the engine was running.
Don't know if he was being a moron or serious.
If they want to be pedantic about the engine being running, even in a safe place, then theyd have to prosecute people sitting in drive throughs while getting cash out, while collecting the food and often if eating while parked up and the engine is running.
Reason being folk could just stop in the middle of the road or at traffic lights and chat away so it had to be included to stop these silly beggars.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff