Mobile phone use crackdown

[defblade]

I understand the research says in your hand or hands-free are as bad as each other.

I also don't get why people need to take that call 99% of the time, but then I'm old


What I would say is:

Everyone KNOWS using your mobile while driving is illegal.

So those who still do it tend to be selfish gits who will ignore many other rules/standards as well*... all these things add up to someone who is much more dangerous than the next driver.
I'm quite happy for the fine for this to be increased to the new level... get the new driver kids used to not using their phones when driving or their licence is gone, and everyone else gets one warning.



*As a biker, which means first off you notice poor driving much more and secondly you're at the right height and eventually going past to be able to glance in and see, if the tints aren't too dark, you will quickly find a high number of these gits drive 4x4s with illegally spaced plates and illegally tinted windows, whilst chatting on the phone held to their ear.

[herewego]

Vipers said:

HSE stats for 2015 show :

Between 220 and 260 people were killed in Great Britain where at least 1 driver was over the drink drive limit.

The number of seriously injured casualties in drink drive accidents were 1,070.

The total number of casualties of all types in drink drive accidents is 8,210.

Just wondering what is being done about this, shouldn't the drink driving limit be zero. Seems although fatalities and injuries can be reduced (hopefully) by increase fines for using a hand held phone, what is being done about drink drive limits.

Just a thought.

Is there some evidence that reducing the limit to zero would significantly reduce KSIs?

[Vipers]

herewego said:

Vipers said:

HSE stats for 2015 show :

Between 220 and 260 people were killed in Great Britain where at least 1 driver was over the drink drive limit.

The number of seriously injured casualties in drink drive accidents were 1,070.

The total number of casualties of all types in drink drive accidents is 8,210.

Just wondering what is being done about this, shouldn't the drink driving limit be zero. Seems although fatalities and injuries can be reduced (hopefully) by increase fines for using a hand held phone, what is being done about drink drive limits.

Just a thought.

Is there some evidence that reducing the limit to zero would significantly reduce KSIs?

What are KSIs'. Some evidence shows a reduction in accidents in Scotland since the limit was reduced.

[Boosted LS1]

rambo19 said:

Boosted LS1 said:

"But, 6 points and £1000 fine from March 1st is a good start."

I think it's a rubbish start. It makes no account of the scale of the offence. Using your phone whilst parked up in a layby or car park, engine running shouldn't carry any punishment at all.

Texting on the move or scrolling through your apps could merit a ban.

I would like to proof of anyone who got a FPN for using the phone whilst parked in a layby or carpark.

It's an offence if the engine's running. You could send in a FOI request.

[Vipers]

Boosted LS1 said:

rambo19 said:

Boosted LS1 said:

"But, 6 points and £1000 fine from March 1st is a good start."

I think it's a rubbish start. It makes no account of the scale of the offence. Using your phone whilst parked up in a layby or car park, engine running shouldn't carry any punishment at all.

Texting on the move or scrolling through your apps could merit a ban.

I would like to proof of anyone who got a FPN for using the phone whilst parked in a layby or carpark.

It's an offence if the engine's running. You could send in a FOI request.

Surely car parks are not public roads, parks, so does the law applies, lay by maybe, just thinking out loud.

[Mr Snrub]

Vipers said:

herewego said:

Vipers said:

HSE stats for 2015 show :

Between 220 and 260 people were killed in Great Britain where at least 1 driver was over the drink drive limit.

The number of seriously injured casualties in drink drive accidents were 1,070.

The total number of casualties of all types in drink drive accidents is 8,210.

Just wondering what is being done about this, shouldn't the drink driving limit be zero. Seems although fatalities and injuries can be reduced (hopefully) by increase fines for using a hand held phone, what is being done about drink drive limits.

Just a thought.

Is there some evidence that reducing the limit to zero would significantly reduce KSIs?

What are KSIs'. Some evidence shows a reduction in accidents in Scotland since the limit was reduced.

Well reducing the drink drive limit to zero would certainly see a lot more people banned, even when they have a tiny amount in their system that has no effect on their ability to drive, or used the wrong brand of mouthwash, cough medicine etc

[Vipers]

Re using hand held phones in lay-bys with the engine running is derived from the term used in the HC only being legal if safely parked, safely parked mentions engine switched off. I think.

Re zero alcohol and mouthwash, seems to work in other countries I am sure. Does mouthwash contain alcohol by the way?

If so, let the limit take this into account, i.e. Pint of beer v gargle on mouthwash.

Edited by Vipers on Wednesday 8th February 20:26

[SS2.]

nonsequitur said:

SS2. said:

herewego said:

helix402 said:

Not sure 2016 figures have been published yet, I can't find them anyway. I'm not sure that 200 death figure is correct, looking at the other years.

I see 200 KSIs quoted not 200 deaths.

He has a point, though.

The official KSI figures have been pretty static for the past 5 years. I'd have expected an abrupt increase of some 100% in 2016 alone to have been broadcast from the highest rooftops by those parties intent on stigmatising all phone use when behind the wheel to the same level of social unacceptability as drink-driving.

FWIW, the published figures where mobile phone use was recorded as a contributory factor:

2011 - 22 killed, 55 seriously injured
2012 - 17 killed, 67 seriously injured
2013 - 22 killed, 73 seriously injured
2014 - 21 killed, 84 seriously injured
2015 - 22 killed, 75 seriously injured

We are close to making these statistics over complicated.

No we're not.

The official figures for 2011 - 2015 have been posted.

You asserted that, compared to these years, the 2016 figures show a 100% increase in KSI where mobile phone use was a contributory factor.

You were asked to substantiate that claim.

Nothing complicated about that.

nonsequitur said:

Whatever the correct numbers we are currently discussing..

For any meaningful discussion (and perspective), they should be the correct ones.

[SS2.]

Vipers said:

Re using hand held phones in lay-bys with the engine running is derived from the term used in the HC only being legal if safely parked, safely parked mentions engine switched off. I think.

Nothing to do with the Highway Code.

Statute uses the words 'no person shall drive a motor vehicle...' to create the [hand-held] mobile phone prohibition. And people have been held to be 'driving' whilst their vehicles were stationary with the engine running.

[Vipers]

SS2. said:

Vipers said:

Re using hand held phones in lay-bys with the engine running is derived from the term used in the HC only being legal if safely parked, safely parked mentions engine switched off. I think.

Nothing to do with the Highway Code.

Statute uses the words 'no person shall drive a motor vehicle...' to create the [hand-held] mobile phone prohibition. And people have been held to be 'driving' whilst their vehicles were stationary with the engine running.

The "Gov.uk" website on mobile refers you to "safely parked" in the HC. So whilst it is statute as you pointed out, it is also referred to in the HC as I read it. Motorists "usually" read the HC not statute.

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

Follow link to Safely parked, here.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiti...

[SS2.]

Vipers said:

The "Gov.uk" website on mobile refers you to "safely parked" in the HC. So whilst it is statute as you pointed out, it is also referred to in the HC as I read it. Motorists "usually" read the HC not statute.

I appreciate that the HC is readily available to the motoring public, although how many take the time to read it is open to debate.

That said, whether or not a person is deemed to be 'driving' is a question of fact which would ultimately fall to be decided by a court.

In reaching any such decision, a court would rely upon the wording of statute and any relevant established precedents. They would not base their decision on the guidance / advice provided by the Highway Code.

[Vipers]

SS2. said:

Vipers said:

The "Gov.uk" website on mobile refers you to "safely parked" in the HC. So whilst it is statute as you pointed out, it is also referred to in the HC as I read it. Motorists "usually" read the HC not statute.

I appreciate that the HC is readily available to the motoring public, although how many take the time to read it is open to debate.

That said, whether or not a person is deemed to be 'driving' is a question of fact which would ultimately fall to be decided by a court.

In reaching any such decision, a court would rely upon the wording of statute and any relevant established precedents. They would not base their decision on the guidance / advice provided by the Highway Code.

Agree, not many read the HC sadly, and yes only a court can interpret what the law means. (At times though incorrectly, always amuses me when one judge makes a ruling, and another overthrows it), I think though a lawyer, or expert witness can bring up guidance in the proceedings, and as it says, it is but guidance.

But as I said, agree with your comments.

[timmymagic73]

On my way into work this morning I followed a chap in a van (Astravan with a clear glass rear window) talking/interacting with a Skype or Facetime call on his mobile. This call continued for a few miles across town until he turned off and we went our separate ways.

I could see the other participant of the call clearly as the phone was fixed to a mount stuck right in the centre of the windscreen. When the call arrived he even reached up and turned on the interior light so they could see him more clearly!

So obviously this was still "hands free" - but surely this isn't still legal? You could argue that he wasn't actually looking at the screen, officer...

Incidentally my dashcam recorded the whole thing, but his driving was still adequate so I'll just let the data get overwritten...