7 points for mobile use while driving

[black-k1]

Fleegle said:

black-k1 said:

I have no problem with hands free phone calls/phone usage as long as it doesn’t require the screen to be read but use of the phone where the screen needs to be read does piss me off.

I hate to see other drivers doing it as their concentration with regards to driving is, at best, avoiding running into the car in front and keeping it roughly in lane. Anything else, like watching for motorbikes filtering etc. is in the too difficult pile and gets ignored.

I would guess from my totally unscientific observations that in excess of 25% of road users are doing it while moving in congested traffic.

Enforcing the law against it will always be a problem as you can’t easily automate the enforcement. I’m not sure I’d want an increase in the penalty for use of the phone but I think more prosecutions relating to a lack of care and attention (THE biggest single cause of accidents on the roads) would be welcome although, again, these may be more difficult to prove.

A fact I found interesting recently on a driver awareness course was that the stopping distance for an emergency stop was less for somebody driving with a phone to their ear than the distance of someone using a handsfree phone

My "enthusiasm" for hands free is it's normally easer to separate those making a call (not dangerous) from those texting/e-mailing/facebooking/tweeting etc. (dangerous). If phones could only make/receive calls then I wouldn't have too much of an issue with hands on use although the juggling of phone to ear, steering, gears and indicators with only two hands and while negotiating a roundabout/junction is a skill most of us would struggle with.

[ferrariF50lover]

Fleegle said:

I spoke to a bike copper at the lights this morning and asked what line the police take on the use of phones. I made no reference to texting but he immediately replied that he's constantly looking in cars when filtering past stationary vehicles and he takes no prisoners should he find anyone texting or e-mailing.

The trouble is, they can't be everywhere

And herein lies the problem. A largely lazy and overly target driven police force.

Texting while sat stationery in a car is no more dangerous than texting while sat stationery in my lounge. It's no more dangerous than programming a sat nav in identical circumstances. I can't prove it, but it seems obvious to me that literally no one has ever been injured as a direct result of a person texting while being sat in the driving seat of a car while that car wasn't moving.

What is dangerous is taking photos while doing 70 on a foggy stretch of the A35.

The problem is, we can't write laws to differentiate between those two scenarios, so we write blanket laws, which are designed to eliminate the danger, but have the unfortunate side effect of also banning a perfectly safe and often jolly useful feature of modern life.

However, at the same time, we continue to churn out robotised policemen, whose only job is to hit the targets imposed upon them by the same Government which made the law in question in the first place.
This target driven policing strategy incentivises policemen to go after the easy collar, rather than doing old fashioned police work and making the world a safer place.

The quoted post evidences this. Instead of spending his time out looking for the hopeless, dithering octogenarians who are a danger to themselves and others, the chap in question devotes his time to punishing people for doing something which is incapable of causing harm. Everybody (except the treasury) loses.

The answer is not more cameras, more laws, more draconian punishment. The answer is education, both for drivers and policemen. Drivers (dizzy bints in pink Minis and that sort of thing) need to be told that there is a time and a place for "selfies", and that they need to exercise some proper judgement. Policemen need to be told likewise. They need to be freed from the shackle of endless targets and told that they'll be judged on the quality of their detections, rather than the quantity. Catching a frighteningly inadequate driver doing 30, outside a school, at 1500 on a termtime Tuesday, in the snow, in a badly maintained Perodua on £15 ditchfinders with 1.6mm tread is a much more viable arrest than nabbing you or I texting the wife while sat at the lights.

It won't happen, of course, I know that.

Simon.

[julian64]

Mr2Mike said:

julian64 said:

Pittyy tthhhheeee ffooollll.

I'm glad my GP isn't such a massive cock.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt it was a B.A.Barracus impersonation as fleegle and I were exchanging 'you be an idiot' comments.
However I can see how you may have misinterpreted this as it wasn't very clear in hindsight and I assume Fleegle got it even if you didn't. It wasn't stellar in retrospect but I don't think it deserved your reply

BTW with the possible exception of loon, I don't think its really important what any of us do for a living. I only reluctantly give out that information if either someone asks a directly medical question, and wants to know what weight to put behind my reply, or in a thread about hearing I had to explain why I had experience enough regarding hearing loss to question the validity of hearing data someone had collected from the internet.

Do hope that the word GP before every obscenity isn't going to become a regular thing.

[KGB1]

Took this pic a couple of weeks ago while on a bus in Hong Kong, typical family pastime while driving I'm afraid;


Personally I would ban anyone texting while driving.

[black-k1]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Didn't you hear that conversation first time around?

[julian64]

black-k1 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Didn't you hear that conversation first time around?

smooth

[Fleegle]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I disagree too. Heres what I'd typed up before I was rudely disturbed by work

There seems to be a lot of people that think texting/e-mailing while stationary in traffic isn’t a problem. I disagree with this from my bikers perspective.
My first issue is that even though the traffic is at a standstill (eg lights on red), they are not paying attention to what is changing ahead. This could be frustrating for those that have missed the lights again because the texter was otherwise busy when the lights changed to green
The people who are texting will more than likely leave their smartphone on their laps once moving. I know when I send a text or e-mail, a reply isn’t far behind. Where are the texters eyes going to be when the phone gives out its audible notification?

While the actions above may not concern drivers of the car behind, it certainly concerns me when I’m in a slightly more vulnerable position when they make an erractic move due to trying to tap in there next message.

I’m no wilting wallflower and can quite often read the tell tale signs of who is and who isn’t and take the appropriate action on the bike, but this problem is on the increase. Is this easy pickings for the plods Christmas party?? I don’t think so. I think they need to take a tougher stand. Hence my comment about it being a 7 pointer on the licence.

[julian64]

Fleegle said:

I disagree too. Heres what I'd typed up before I was rudely disturbed by work

There seems to be a lot of people that think texting/e-mailing while stationary in traffic isn’t a problem. I disagree with this from my bikers perspective.
My first issue is that even though the traffic is at a standstill (eg lights on red), they are not paying attention to what is changing ahead. This could be frustrating for those that have missed the lights again because the texter was otherwise busy when the lights changed to green
The people who are texting will more than likely leave their smartphone on their laps once moving. I know when I send a text or e-mail, a reply isn’t far behind. Where are the texters eyes going to be when the phone gives out its audible notification?

While the actions above may not concern drivers of the car behind, it certainly concerns me when I’m in a slightly more vulnerable position when they make an erractic move due to trying to tap in there next message.

I’m no wilting wallflower and can quite often read the tell tale signs of who is and who isn’t and take the appropriate action on the bike, but this problem is on the increase. Is this easy pickings for the plods Christmas party?? I don’t think so. I think they need to take a tougher stand. Hence my comment about it being a 7 pointer on the licence.

Well that may be true if not doing anything and eyes straight ahead meant they were actually contemplating their next move in the car. But sadly I think for the sort of people you're commenting on, 'the lights are on but no ones at home', is more likely to be the case.

Or at least I wouldn't bet money on the 'staring ahead' tellig me the difference.

Having said that I actually thought joe le car driver were getting better. I've spent most of the summer going back and forth on the bike to work and have been pleasantly surprised how many cars pull over or help the overtake/filtering. I do have to admit though I don't ride come the winter months anymore and with the poorer visibility things are starting to get a little too risky, so I am a bit fair weather.

[ferrariF50lover]

So when I deliberately (quite so) typed "stationery" and received two replies disagreeing telling me all about how dangerous it'll start being when the vehicle starts moving again, what was that, a bad joke?

Simon.

Before you get upset, please know that I typed that post in the voice of a Jewish New Yorker in his 70s. Please read it in that same manner.

Yeah, people driving like idiots as a result of the using of phones are a problem, and I do see how one might follow from the other. However, these scenarios are all a bit 'end of days' and definitely no more common than people driving like idiots for other, perfectly legal reasons. I also understand that the law is framed to deal with the lowest common denominator and that people like you and I are nothing more than unfortunate collateral damage. It is for this reason that I won't complain if I'm ever caught texting at the lights or in a queue. What I do still object to is those policemen (and the targets that drive them) who specifically prey on the harmless but easily collared.

[caduceus]

julian64 said:

Do hope that the word GP before every obscenity isn't going to become a regular thing.

GP is an acronym you crazy fool! Word....

[croyde]

KGB1 said:

Took this pic a couple of weeks ago while on a bus in Hong Kong, typical family pastime while driving I'm afraid;


Personally I would ban anyone texting while driving.

And unsecured baggage in the passenger compartment

Personally I barely speak to my passengers when I drive. I want 200% concentration on the road.

Feks me off when I pass cars on motorways and the driver is having an animated conversation with his passengers. He/She is obviously not committed to their actual job of driving.

[Pixelpeep7r]

I guess taking a photo of the speedo because it was showing 100mph, uploading it to Facebook and tagging the people in the back of the car whilst still traveling at 100mph wasn't such a good idea then?

[Wedg1e]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Sensible policies for a better Britain. I'd vote for you.
While you're at it, have someone take random 9mm potshots through Pistorius' closed cell door: you never know, he might get lucky.

[WaferThinHam]

A true pro can text down the dual carriage way, and steer with their knees.

IMO it's pretty much unenforced, and if you don't see the policeman before he sees you on the phone then you deserve to get caught as you were obviously distracted.

[Prof Prolapse]

No issue with a phones per se. I can and have used them safely in the past. I was no more dangerous after the law changed.

Dangerous driving, I.e. The consequence, should carry a more serious penalty. The potential to do harm, should only be a mild punishment as it is now.