Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?
Discussion
Crackie said:
singlecoil said:
Do you people not recognise satire when you see it? It could hardly have been more obvious.
You have history singlecoil.......it was far from obvious. All the information you needed to see that it was satire is contained within this one thread.
singlecoil said:
Crackie said:
singlecoil said:
Do you people not recognise satire when you see it? It could hardly have been more obvious.
You have history singlecoil.......it was far from obvious. All the information you needed to see that it was satire is contained within this one thread.
Crackie said:
Me, and several others, taking issue with your, often pontificating, posting style does nothing to benefit the thread so I think we should get back to discussing the original topic.
Then please do so on your own, I get that you would sooner play without an opponent anyway.singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
I'm not saying the physical limitation with hands-held doesn't exist - to an extent it clearly does - but I don't think it's the main problem with mobile phone usage when driving....
I'm not sure what the row of dots after your post signifies, is it a request for a reply?I was going to reply anyway, that maybe it isn't the main problem, or maybe it is (we can argue about that if you like) but holding the phone is an ADDITIONAL problem. It's adding to the burden on the driver. The conversation distraction is there anyway, and holding the phone is extra.
I agree not having both hands on the wheel means there's an additional burden with hands-held but where we differ is I don't think removing that additional burden materially alters the total level of distraction and therefore risk; it reduces it a bit but (IMO) not by enough to change the practice of talking on a mobile whilst driving from being unacceptable to acceptable. For that reason I find the indignation and at times hysteria associated with hands-held use to be misplaced because it ignores the massive elephant in the room (i.e. it's the conversation and not the holding of the device that's the main problem).
vonhosen said:
They would.
Mark Milton decided to test his Police car out to see what it would do.
He was reported by his colleagues, charged by his bosses, prosecuted by the CPS & convicted by the courts.
(Another who tried to use his training as a defence as to why it wasn't dangerous).
An absolute discharge is hardly comparable to 4 months in jail however. Wasn't he also cleared for a crash caused by doing 90+ in a 40 limit?Mark Milton decided to test his Police car out to see what it would do.
He was reported by his colleagues, charged by his bosses, prosecuted by the CPS & convicted by the courts.
(Another who tried to use his training as a defence as to why it wasn't dangerous).
I'm not police bashing BTW, just showing how ludicrous the 4 month sentence really is.
JNW1 said:
Well the research and evidence shows the conversation is the main problem even though you refuse to believe and accept it.
....
JNW1, there is research and evidence to show that roast potatoes can give you cancer but I would hazard a guess that most people still have them with their Sunday roast! ....
I'm still not sure what the relevance of your one-man crusade on hands-free phone use is to the discussion about sentencing for speeding, but for me I'm quite comfortable to make my own mind up over what distractions I can and can't deal with whilst driving.
The Surveyor said:
JNW1 said:
Well the research and evidence shows the conversation is the main problem even though you refuse to believe and accept it.
....
JNW1, there is research and evidence to show that roast potatoes can give you cancer but I would hazard a guess that most people still have them with their Sunday roast! ....
I'm still not sure what the relevance of your one-man crusade on hands-free phone use is to the discussion about sentencing for speeding, but for me I'm quite comfortable to make my own mind up over what distractions I can and can't deal with whilst driving.
In contrast, mobile phone use whilst driving happens all the time and is, IMO, a significant distraction (a view which the research and evidence seems to support). People will then chime-in with comments along the lines of "yes and of course there should be much tougher punishments for using a hand-hand mobile" and my question is why, given the evidence, are they so relaxed about hands-free use? Doesn't make any sense in my view. Moreover, if you're genuinely concerned about safety, it also makes little sense to support locking-up a biker for doing 149mph in the middle of nowhere whilst being prepared to condone a practice which exposes far more people to risk every day; the research suggests the level of distraction associated with talking on a mobile whilst driving (hands-free or not) is akin to that associated with drink driving and I don't think many people nowadays would be relaxed with the idea of lots of drunk drivers on our roads!
I take your point entirely about you being quite comfortable to make your own mind up over what distractions you can and can't deal with whilst driving and I feel the same. I also feel perfectly able to determine a speed at which it's appropriate for me to travel safely but the authorities don't let me because their view is many people can't be trusted to make the right decision; as a consequence, I'm often obliged to drive slower than I'd choose (at least out of town and on motorways) and reluctantly I have to accept the legislation in the interests of the wider common good. I daresay the lady who was talking hands-free and as consequence was speeding, ran a set of traffic lights and killed two children was probably also comfortable that she could make-up her own mind about what distractions she could deal with whilst driving; however, in reality she clearly couldn't and I suspect she's far from the only one.
JNW1 said:
The Surveyor said:
JNW1 said:
Well the research and evidence shows the conversation is the main problem even though you refuse to believe and accept it.
....
JNW1, there is research and evidence to show that roast potatoes can give you cancer but I would hazard a guess that most people still have them with their Sunday roast! ....
I'm still not sure what the relevance of your one-man crusade on hands-free phone use is to the discussion about sentencing for speeding, but for me I'm quite comfortable to make my own mind up over what distractions I can and can't deal with whilst driving.
In contrast, mobile phone use whilst driving happens all the time and is, IMO, a significant distraction (a view which the research and evidence seems to support). People will then chime-in with comments along the lines of "yes and of course there should be much tougher punishments for using a hand-hand mobile" and my question is why, given the evidence, are they so relaxed about hands-free use? Doesn't make any sense in my view. Moreover, if you're genuinely concerned about safety, it also makes little sense to support locking-up a biker for doing 149mph in the middle of nowhere whilst being prepared to condone a practice which exposes far more people to risk every day; the research suggests the level of distraction associated with talking on a mobile whilst driving (hands-free or not) is akin to that associated with drink driving and I don't think many people nowadays would be relaxed with the idea of lots of drunk drivers on our roads!
I take your point entirely about you being quite comfortable to make your own mind up over what distractions you can and can't deal with whilst driving and I feel the same. I also feel perfectly able to determine a speed at which it's appropriate for me to travel safely but the authorities don't let me because their view is many people can't be trusted to make the right decision; as a consequence, I'm often obliged to drive slower than I'd choose (at least out of town and on motorways) and reluctantly I have to accept the legislation in the interests of the wider common good. I daresay the lady who was talking hands-free and as consequence was speeding, ran a set of traffic lights and killed two children was probably also comfortable that she could make-up her own mind about what distractions she could deal with whilst driving; however, in reality she clearly couldn't and I suspect she's far from the only one.
Use of hand-held phone = illegal and distracting.
Use of hands-free phone = legal and distracting.
Talking to your passenger = legal and distracting
Shouting at your noisy children in the back = legal and distracting
Looking at a lady walking on the pavement in a miniskirt with a bouncy blouse = legal and even more distracting!
There are distraction every moment we spend behind the wheel and however much legislation gets thrown at motorists you will never rule that out. The (lost) principles of speed enforcement is that when you get distracted or make a mistake, the result has less impact than would be the case if you were travelling faster.
The Surveyor said:
Use of hand-held phone = illegal and distracting.
Use of hands-free phone = legal and distracting.
There are distraction every moment we spend behind the wheel and however much legislation gets thrown at motorists you will never rule that out. The (lost) principles of speed enforcement is that when you get distracted or make a mistake, the result has less impact than would be the case if you were travelling faster.
Agreed but the point I'm making is that, based on the available evidence and research, the distinction in terms of legality between the two actions above is not justified; therefore, to condone hands-free use whilst at the same time wishing to vilify someone who uses a device hands-held is not logical IMO (yet it happens all the time as we've seen on this thread). Use of hands-free phone = legal and distracting.
There are distraction every moment we spend behind the wheel and however much legislation gets thrown at motorists you will never rule that out. The (lost) principles of speed enforcement is that when you get distracted or make a mistake, the result has less impact than would be the case if you were travelling faster.
By the same taken if road safety is your priority is makes little sense to me to get worked-up over an event that happens rarely - and affects hardly anyone - whilst at the same time condoning an action which occurs far more frequently, potentially affects far more people and which the evidence suggests is as distracting as drinking and driving. The fact the latter is legal seems to lead some to the conclusion that that's because it's alright and there's nothing wrong with it; however, if it is indeed as distracting as the research and evidence suggests, isn't a more logical response to question why we allow the practice to continue?
The Surveyor said:
Use of hands-free phone = legal and distracting.
Talking to your passenger = legal and distracting
Shouting at your noisy children in the back = legal and distracting
Looking at a lady walking on the pavement in a miniskirt with a bouncy blouse = legal and even more distracting!
If the driver is distracted, then it's not legal. It's just that there's not a specific offence, it'd fall under the catch-all of "careless driving".Talking to your passenger = legal and distracting
Shouting at your noisy children in the back = legal and distracting
Looking at a lady walking on the pavement in a miniskirt with a bouncy blouse = legal and even more distracting!
JNW1 said:
Agreed but the point I'm making is that, based on the available evidence and research,.....
I know the point you were making but I simply don't agree.Just because somebody has done 'research' and presented the results as 'evidence' doesn't mean it is credible. Ask Edwina Curry on the dangers of eggs for eggsample?
There is no doubt that holding any conversation whilst driving is mentally distracting, it will distract people to a lessor or greater degree depending on the individual, the conversation, the surrounding conditions, all of which can be assessed by the individual. Talking whilst holding a phone against your ear is not only a mental distraction but is also a physical restriction that impairs the drivers ability to operate the car correctly. That physical distraction is the additional factor which makes hand-held use one step too far for the authorities IMHO. That and the fact that a hands-free phone ban would be impossible to police.
There is no safe/unsafe level of distraction when it comes to phone use, just like there is no/unsafe speed. The authorities do however have to establish a threshold based upon their research and the practicalities of enforcement, that's why there are speed limits, and why hands-free phone use is deemed legal, and hand-held is not.
singlecoil said:
Crackie said:
Me, and several others, taking issue with your, often pontificating, posting style does nothing to benefit the thread so I think we should get back to discussing the original topic.
Then please do so on your own, I get that you would sooner play without an opponent anyway.In my opinion it is totally illogical to have a regime whereby we penalise drivers (sometimes quite severely) for exceeding a speed limit, but take no action against other drivers who actually have crashes and do damage.
There was an instance of the latter on an episode of Traffic Cops a few months ago. Driver loses control of his car and crashes through a bridge parapet and ends up in the river below, apparently without doing himself serious harm. This was near a quite hard to find little spot called Fryup in the Esk valley near Whitby. Anyhow a North Yorkshire RPU car attended the incident and according to the programme no action was taken against the driver.
The system is complete nonsense, and as far as I'm concerned it makes it very hard to have respect for the law.
The Surveyor said:
Exceeding the speed limit = illegal.
Use of hand-held phone = illegal and distracting.
Use of hands-free phone = legal and distracting.
Talking to your passenger = legal and distracting
Shouting at your noisy children in the back = legal and distracting
Looking at a lady walking on the pavement in a miniskirt with a bouncy blouse = legal and even more distracting!
There are distraction every moment we spend behind the wheel and however much legislation gets thrown at motorists you will never rule that out. The (lost) principles of speed enforcement is that when you get distracted or make a mistake, the result has less impact than would be the case if you were travelling faster.
Nothing distracts you when doing 149mph on a bike if you want to remain alive. It's not like someone talking on the phone whilst cruising at 85mph.Use of hand-held phone = illegal and distracting.
Use of hands-free phone = legal and distracting.
Talking to your passenger = legal and distracting
Shouting at your noisy children in the back = legal and distracting
Looking at a lady walking on the pavement in a miniskirt with a bouncy blouse = legal and even more distracting!
There are distraction every moment we spend behind the wheel and however much legislation gets thrown at motorists you will never rule that out. The (lost) principles of speed enforcement is that when you get distracted or make a mistake, the result has less impact than would be the case if you were travelling faster.
The Surveyor said:
I know the point you were making but I simply don't agree.
Just because somebody has done 'research' and presented the results as 'evidence' doesn't mean it is credible. Ask Edwina Curry on the dangers of eggs for eggsample?
There is no doubt that holding any conversation whilst driving is mentally distracting, it will distract people to a lessor or greater degree depending on the individual, the conversation, the surrounding conditions, all of which can be assessed by the individual. Talking whilst holding a phone against your ear is not only a mental distraction but is also a physical restriction that impairs the drivers ability to operate the car correctly. That physical distraction is the additional factor which makes hand-held use one step too far for the authorities IMHO. That and the fact that a hands-free phone ban would be impossible to police.
There is no safe/unsafe level of distraction when it comes to phone use, just like there is no/unsafe speed. The authorities do however have to establish a threshold based upon their research and the practicalities of enforcement, that's why there are speed limits, and why hands-free phone use is deemed legal, and hand-held is not.
It isn't just "somebody" though is it, it is (amongst others) independent, reputable, organisations like the Transport Research Laboratory; if they aren't credible in your eyes who is or would be?Just because somebody has done 'research' and presented the results as 'evidence' doesn't mean it is credible. Ask Edwina Curry on the dangers of eggs for eggsample?
There is no doubt that holding any conversation whilst driving is mentally distracting, it will distract people to a lessor or greater degree depending on the individual, the conversation, the surrounding conditions, all of which can be assessed by the individual. Talking whilst holding a phone against your ear is not only a mental distraction but is also a physical restriction that impairs the drivers ability to operate the car correctly. That physical distraction is the additional factor which makes hand-held use one step too far for the authorities IMHO. That and the fact that a hands-free phone ban would be impossible to police.
There is no safe/unsafe level of distraction when it comes to phone use, just like there is no/unsafe speed. The authorities do however have to establish a threshold based upon their research and the practicalities of enforcement, that's why there are speed limits, and why hands-free phone use is deemed legal, and hand-held is not.
I hear what you say about the physical distraction of holding a handset but the evidence and research I've seen doesn't support the notion that it's the holding of the handset that's the main cause of driver distraction; it's having the conversation and that clearly applies to hands-free as well as hand-held use. Now if there's evidence to the contrary of course that should be taken into account but to date I haven't seen any and experiments with control groups seem to suggest no real difference between talking hands-held and talking hands-free (i.e. both are bad when it comes to driver distraction).
In terms of your final sentence, it would be interesting to hear someone from the authorities articulate their reasons as to why hands-held is illegal and hands-free isn't. Perhaps they do indeed have good evidence to show there's a significantly different level of distraction between the two methods of use but if they have I can only reiterate I've never seen it or been able to find it. My suspicion is that the difference is due largely to expediency but if true is that really a good basis for formulating traffic laws which are meant to promote safety?
Mr2Mike said:
vonhosen said:
They would.
Mark Milton decided to test his Police car out to see what it would do.
He was reported by his colleagues, charged by his bosses, prosecuted by the CPS & convicted by the courts.
(Another who tried to use his training as a defence as to why it wasn't dangerous).
An absolute discharge is hardly comparable to 4 months in jail however. Wasn't he also cleared for a crash caused by doing 90+ in a 40 limit?Mark Milton decided to test his Police car out to see what it would do.
He was reported by his colleagues, charged by his bosses, prosecuted by the CPS & convicted by the courts.
(Another who tried to use his training as a defence as to why it wasn't dangerous).
I'm not police bashing BTW, just showing how ludicrous the 4 month sentence really is.
He had it hanging over him affecting his career life on hold etc for nearly 3 years with all the retrials etc.
I suspect the court took the view that he had been through mill with it & it was a legal argument that he was the pony in.
As Re the later crash, a crash doesn't mean you are guilty, the evidence of your actions do & the court came to the conclusion that he wasn't guilty of dangerous driving (further evidencing that dangerous driving isn't just about the numbers on the speedo & stick).
vonhosen said:
As Re the later crash, a crash doesn't mean you are guilty, the evidence of your actions do & the court came to the conclusion that he wasn't guilty of dangerous driving (further evidencing that dangerous driving isn't just about the numbers on the speedo & stick).
.......and yet doing it AND stacking it into a roundabout generally means an MOP would be convicted, usually. s3fella said:
vonhosen said:
As Re the later crash, a crash doesn't mean you are guilty, the evidence of your actions do & the court came to the conclusion that he wasn't guilty of dangerous driving (further evidencing that dangerous driving isn't just about the numbers on the speedo & stick).
.......and yet doing it AND stacking it into a roundabout generally means an MOP would be convicted, usually. Each case that then gets to court is dealt with on it's own individual facts.
vonhosen said:
Most people who stack it without any other vehicle involved don't get sent to court, it's the exception rather than the rule.
Each case that then gets to court is dealt with on it's own individual facts.
All this guff doesn't change the fact that sending someone to jail for 4 months for doing 149mph with no demonstrable risk to others is unjustifiable when considered against sentences handed out for other offences.Each case that then gets to court is dealt with on it's own individual facts.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff