Mobile phone use crackdown
Discussion
JumboBeef said:
Vipers said:
Been thrashed to death before, there are (apparently) some driving gods who can hold a conversation and drive with a hand held with no problems, and those who can't, but think they are also driving gods, so it doesn't matter.
And those who have the intelligence to just purchase a hands free kit and be done with it.
Those with the real intelligence don't make or receive calls when driving, hands free or not.And those who have the intelligence to just purchase a hands free kit and be done with it.
My phone has a mount and a hands free kit but I will not make/receive calls when driving. I use it as a Sat Nav and nothing else when moving.
No call (except to 999) can't wait until you arrive, or at least pull over.
nonsequitur said:
200 people killed or seriously injured in mobile phone incidents in 2015. Why are we still discussing this?
And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
Assuming your figure of 200 is correct...And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
200 of 23,869 or 0.83% of all KSI in 2015.
A total of 317,000,000,000 passenger miles were travelled on private transport in 2015, meaning one KSI per 1,585,000,000 miles. Thus, one could drive from here to Saturn while on the phone and be statistically likely to kill or seriously injure just a single person.
In 2001, 311 people were killed or seriously injured by... Birdbaths.
In 2010, 290 people were killed (no word on injuries) by falling out of bed.
A law enforcing futon purchase upon citizens would save considerably more lives than banning mobile phone use behind the wheel. A ban on the sale of peanuts would save more lives in a week than the mobile ban does in a year. A cigarette ban would (I'm guessing now) save more lives in 18 seconds than the mobile ban does in a year.
ferrariF50lover said:
nonsequitur said:
200 people killed or seriously injured in mobile phone incidents in 2015. Why are we still discussing this?
And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
Assuming your figure of 200 is correct...And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
200 of 23,869 or 0.83% of all KSI in 2015.
A total of 317,000,000,000 passenger miles were travelled on private transport in 2015, meaning one KSI per 1,585,000,000 miles. Thus, one could drive from here to Saturn while on the phone and be statistically likely to kill or seriously injure just a single person.
In 2001, 311 people were killed or seriously injured by... Birdbaths.
In 2010, 290 people were killed (no word on injuries) by falling out of bed.
A law enforcing futon purchase upon citizens would save considerably more lives than banning mobile phone use behind the wheel. A ban on the sale of peanuts would save more lives in a week than the mobile ban does in a year. A cigarette ban would (I'm guessing now) save more lives in 18 seconds than the mobile ban does in a year.
ferrariF50lover said:
nonsequitur said:
200 people killed or seriously injured in mobile phone incidents in 2015. Why are we still discussing this?
And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
Assuming your figure of 200 is correct...And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
200 of 23,869 or 0.83% of all KSI in 2015.
A total of 317,000,000,000 passenger miles were travelled on private transport in 2015, meaning one KSI per 1,585,000,000 miles. Thus, one could drive from here to Saturn while on the phone and be statistically likely to kill or seriously injure just a single person.
In 2001, 311 people were killed or seriously injured by... Birdbaths.
In 2010, 290 people were killed (no word on injuries) by falling out of bed.
A law enforcing futon purchase upon citizens would save considerably more lives than banning mobile phone use behind the wheel. A ban on the sale of peanuts would save more lives in a week than the mobile ban does in a year. A cigarette ban would (I'm guessing now) save more lives in 18 seconds than the mobile ban does in a year.
^ But they're not just some of them. Using your phone parked up in a layby shouldn't warrant a fine whereas texting on the go is much more serious and should.
This is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and it'll never work. It'll rake in the cash and look like somethings being done politically in just the same way as speeding laws.
This is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and it'll never work. It'll rake in the cash and look like somethings being done politically in just the same way as speeding laws.
speedking31 said:
nonsequitur said:
Illegal at any time the engine is running, moving or stationary.
What is the source for this? I don't mean the police, but the law.JumboBeef said:
Those with the real intelligence don't make or receive calls when driving, hands free or not.
My phone has a mount and a hands free kit but I will not make/receive calls when driving. I use it as a Sat Nav and nothing else when moving.
No call (except to 999) can't wait until you arrive, or at least pull over.
To be honest you sound a bit thick to me if you can't manage a conversation and driving at the same time. Do your passengers have to sit in silence to or is that somehow different... I suspect it might be!My phone has a mount and a hands free kit but I will not make/receive calls when driving. I use it as a Sat Nav and nothing else when moving.
No call (except to 999) can't wait until you arrive, or at least pull over.
cb1965 said:
JumboBeef said:
Those with the real intelligence don't make or receive calls when driving, hands free or not.
My phone has a mount and a hands free kit but I will not make/receive calls when driving. I use it as a Sat Nav and nothing else when moving.
No call (except to 999) can't wait until you arrive, or at least pull over.
To be honest you sound a bit thick to me if you can't manage a conversation and driving at the same time. Do your passengers have to sit in silence to or is that somehow different... I suspect it might be!My phone has a mount and a hands free kit but I will not make/receive calls when driving. I use it as a Sat Nav and nothing else when moving.
No call (except to 999) can't wait until you arrive, or at least pull over.
Something to note, company I work for has a very strict rule on no mobile use when driving, handS free or not. The science shows it is dangerous and if found to be flouting that rule you are likely to be in dismissed. The company has around 35000 employees iirc so not a small business by any account.
Edited by Rick101 on Wednesday 1st February 12:01
Vipers said:
speedking31 said:
nonsequitur said:
Illegal at any time the engine is running, moving or stationary.
What is the source for this? I don't mean the police, but the law.motorlawyers said:
... it would be clear that someone wasn't driving if the engine was off.
Not quite the same thing (reverse argument), but clear enough.swisstoni said:
ferrariF50lover said:
nonsequitur said:
200 people killed or seriously injured in mobile phone incidents in 2015. Why are we still discussing this?
And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
Assuming your figure of 200 is correct...And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
200 of 23,869 or 0.83% of all KSI in 2015.
A total of 317,000,000,000 passenger miles were travelled on private transport in 2015, meaning one KSI per 1,585,000,000 miles. Thus, one could drive from here to Saturn while on the phone and be statistically likely to kill or seriously injure just a single person.
In 2001, 311 people were killed or seriously injured by... Birdbaths.
In 2010, 290 people were killed (no word on injuries) by falling out of bed.
A law enforcing futon purchase upon citizens would save considerably more lives than banning mobile phone use behind the wheel. A ban on the sale of peanuts would save more lives in a week than the mobile ban does in a year. A cigarette ban would (I'm guessing now) save more lives in 18 seconds than the mobile ban does in a year.
J
cb1965 said:
JumboBeef said:
Those with the real intelligence don't make or receive calls when driving, hands free or not.
My phone has a mount and a hands free kit but I will not make/receive calls when driving. I use it as a Sat Nav and nothing else when moving.
No call (except to 999) can't wait until you arrive, or at least pull over.
To be honest you sound a bit thick to me if you can't manage a conversation and driving at the same time. Do your passengers have to sit in silence to or is that somehow different... I suspect it might be!My phone has a mount and a hands free kit but I will not make/receive calls when driving. I use it as a Sat Nav and nothing else when moving.
No call (except to 999) can't wait until you arrive, or at least pull over.
So like all of us, I can manage a conversation when driving, but at times, you need to disengage in conversation, and this is what he means. But of course, there are the driving gods, who can drive, holding a conversation, eating a bacon buttie and watching a vid all at the same time, always will be.
Then again you may have been joking, so I will apologise now just incase.
jith said:
swisstoni said:
ferrariF50lover said:
nonsequitur said:
200 people killed or seriously injured in mobile phone incidents in 2015. Why are we still discussing this?
And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
Assuming your figure of 200 is correct...And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
200 of 23,869 or 0.83% of all KSI in 2015.
A total of 317,000,000,000 passenger miles were travelled on private transport in 2015, meaning one KSI per 1,585,000,000 miles. Thus, one could drive from here to Saturn while on the phone and be statistically likely to kill or seriously injure just a single person.
In 2001, 311 people were killed or seriously injured by... Birdbaths.
In 2010, 290 people were killed (no word on injuries) by falling out of bed.
A law enforcing futon purchase upon citizens would save considerably more lives than banning mobile phone use behind the wheel. A ban on the sale of peanuts would save more lives in a week than the mobile ban does in a year. A cigarette ban would (I'm guessing now) save more lives in 18 seconds than the mobile ban does in a year.
J
But they dont recommend you jump without a parachute. I dont doubt what you say is true, so I am glad you survived OK.
http://www.oddee.com/item_96967.aspx
For info, interesing reading.
jith said:
swisstoni said:
ferrariF50lover said:
nonsequitur said:
200 people killed or seriously injured in mobile phone incidents in 2015. Why are we still discussing this?
And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
Assuming your figure of 200 is correct...And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
200 of 23,869 or 0.83% of all KSI in 2015.
A total of 317,000,000,000 passenger miles were travelled on private transport in 2015, meaning one KSI per 1,585,000,000 miles. Thus, one could drive from here to Saturn while on the phone and be statistically likely to kill or seriously injure just a single person.
In 2001, 311 people were killed or seriously injured by... Birdbaths.
In 2010, 290 people were killed (no word on injuries) by falling out of bed.
A law enforcing futon purchase upon citizens would save considerably more lives than banning mobile phone use behind the wheel. A ban on the sale of peanuts would save more lives in a week than the mobile ban does in a year. A cigarette ban would (I'm guessing now) save more lives in 18 seconds than the mobile ban does in a year.
J
There is always the exception to the rule.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news...
I can't believe anyone nowadays thinks it is safer to be thrown out of a vehicle in an accident rather than be safely strapped in surrounded by airbags.
But some must, all those who don't wear seat belts. I just don't understand it
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news...
I can't believe anyone nowadays thinks it is safer to be thrown out of a vehicle in an accident rather than be safely strapped in surrounded by airbags.
But some must, all those who don't wear seat belts. I just don't understand it
swisstoni said:
Sounds like the arguments put up against seat belts when they were being introduced. Could prevent you from being 'thrown clear' during and accident.
I can't myself see where the similarity lies. I wasn't about, but I guess the line went, "not wearing a seatbelt will see you thrown clear of the impending firey deathtrap, whereas wearing one keeps you trapped." That's zero-sum. You wear one or you don't and one case is less unsafe than the other.The corresponding mobile phone argument would say that using a mobile is less unsafe than not using one for <insert reason here>.
There was no intention for my first post to give that impression, so if you've interpreted that therein, you've erred, I'm afraid.
All I'm doing is presenting the numbers. There are those here arguing that draconian punishment be offered to those caught using mobile phones. Absent any personal agenda, it is reasonable to assume this is because those making the calls for harsh punishment believe the use of mobile phones while driving to present an extremely hazardous activity.
The truth is that it's statistically average for a death or serious injury to result from mobile phone use behind the wheel once every billion and a half miles or so.
Taking an objective view, it seems to me that that makes it a pretty rare thing. Considering the other things which kill significantly more people (birdbaths, underpants, peanut butter etc).
While the gut feeling might be that using a phone while driving is a grave danger, the numbers don't seem to bear this out.
It's a bit like picking seven countries at random and hoping that banning their citizens from visiting your country will make your own people less unsafe. Sounds right. All baddies follow Islam, fewer followers of Islam means fewer baddies. Great. Shame it doesn't actually work like that.
ferrariF50lover said:
swisstoni said:
Sounds like the arguments put up against seat belts when they were being introduced. Could prevent you from being 'thrown clear' during and accident.
I can't myself see where the similarity lies. I wasn't about, but I guess the line went, "not wearing a seatbelt will see you thrown clear of the impending firey deathtrap, whereas wearing one keeps you trapped." That's zero-sum. You wear one or you don't and one case is less unsafe than the other.The corresponding mobile phone argument would say that using a mobile is less unsafe than not using one for <insert reason here>.
There was no intention for my first post to give that impression, so if you've interpreted that therein, you've erred, I'm afraid.
All I'm doing is presenting the numbers. There are those here arguing that draconian punishment be offered to those caught using mobile phones. Absent any personal agenda, it is reasonable to assume this is because those making the calls for harsh punishment believe the use of mobile phones while driving to present an extremely hazardous activity.
The truth is that it's statistically average for a death or serious injury to result from mobile phone use behind the wheel once every billion and a half miles or so.
Taking an objective view, it seems to me that that makes it a pretty rare thing. Considering the other things which kill significantly more people (birdbaths, underpants, peanut butter etc).
While the gut feeling might be that using a phone while driving is a grave danger, the numbers don't seem to bear this out.
It's a bit like picking seven countries at random and hoping that banning their citizens from visiting your country will make your own people less unsafe. Sounds right. All baddies follow Islam, fewer followers of Islam means fewer baddies. Great. Shame it doesn't actually work like that.
I saw someone holding their phone up in front of them as they drove along with their young daughter next to them, last week. She was scrolling through the f
king thing.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff