Using mobile, kills cyclist - sentenced to 5 years.
Discussion
The accident actually came about, it would appear, from the viewing of the already taken pictures. How is this different from reading/sending a txt, or searching for a number to phone?
You may regard my opinions and arguments as "s
te", but I'd like to hear your opinions on that.
ETA: you've hit the nail on the head there...mobiles USED to only make calls. Now they do a lot more, hence the need for the new legislation.
You may regard my opinions and arguments as "s
te", but I'd like to hear your opinions on that.ETA: you've hit the nail on the head there...mobiles USED to only make calls. Now they do a lot more, hence the need for the new legislation.
Mk3Spitfire said:
The accident actually came about, it would appear, from the viewing of the already taken pictures. How is this different from reading/sending a txt, or searching for a number to phone?
You may regard my opinions and arguments as "ste", but I'd like to hear your opinions on that.
ETA: you've hit the nail on the head there...mobiles USED to only make calls. Now they do a lot more, hence the need for the new legislation.
Spitty.You may regard my opinions and arguments as "s
te", but I'd like to hear your opinions on that.ETA: you've hit the nail on the head there...mobiles USED to only make calls. Now they do a lot more, hence the need for the new legislation.
I can use my tom tom sat nav to send and receive texts via my phone, it can also make and receive phone calls from my phone. The parrot kit in my van can dial numbers, be voice activated, whatever.
I can do what I like with my sat nav, I could use my laptop if I wish, none of these devices are legislated against.
The phone law is absolute b
ks, and was a new labour knee jerk reaction to a problem that hit the headlines.The problem here wasn't the fact that he was "using" in the widest term , a mobile phone, the problem was he wasn't looking where he was going.
Imagine he'd been rolling a fag, the same result would have occurred, I'd imagine the same penalty, but we'd have avoided all the self righteous mobile phone haters.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I see so many people doing it (that is texting, surfing, whatever), I so wish they wouldn't, but they do.The law doesn't worry them, and is disregarded so often, that this alone makes it bad law.
What worries me so much with peoples reaction, like but not exclusive to Spitfire3s, is the presumption that is gathering pace that means if you are using your phone, even legally, that is going to be used against you, there was even some idiotic reporting recently that PCs are going to be able to confiscate your phone.
It would be relatively easy to render phones unable to surf, text, whatever, whilst they were moving (via gps), it would be easy to stop people exceeding the speed limit electronically, but "authority" won't bite the bullet and do it.
Instead we just get people prejudices being pandered to.
The notion if seizing phones has actually been around for a while. The justification being that it's evidence of an offence. It was decided though (and probably rightly given that the property store would soon fill up with phones) that this would be disproportionate to to the offence. DBDD of course would still end in your phone taking a holiday though.
Mk3Spitfire said:
The notion if seizing phones has actually been around for a while. The justification being that it's evidence of an offence. It was decided though (and probably rightly given that the property store would soon fill up with phones) that this would be disproportionate to to the offence. DBDD of course would still end in your phone taking a holiday though.
The problem for me is my phone lives in the back of the car/van, it is held there, on charge, and connected via bluetooth to whatever device I am using to make/receive calls (more receive, I very rarely make one whilst driving, very rarely indeed)Any data you or any other PC takes from my phone won't show that, it'll just show it was in use, if it was.
I'm not breaking the law, so (nicely), sod off !
Nigel Worc's said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
He was "using a mobile phone whilst driving". This is the offence I'm referring to. The judge made reference to his actions being as bad as txting. Do you condemn txting whilst driving or is this acceptable to you too?
Don't be obtuse !I disagree with the law on mobile phones because I've used them (as a phone, for nothing else) for about 25 years now.
In a rare occasion of luck, the law has converged on reality.
If he hadn't been "using a mobile phone whilst driving" then there would still be someone alive today.
The law may have originally been conceived around the "making a phone call" function, but as the capability of most phones, and the subsequent potential for distraction has increased, the law has still encompassed them.
Johnnytheboy said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Because punishment seems to be about the consequences of your actions, not your actions. I find this a bit odd.The outcome of DCA may - and often does - turn on events of chance, taking the example of a cyclist impact the outcome will depend on which bit of a motorised vehicle hits the cyclist, how they land, and so on. It makes justice more like a game of chance and less like something which retains proportionality to the degree of blameworthy behaviour involved.
Aristotle's idea that the law is reason free from passion was abandoned some time ago in favour of something less worthy.
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
Really? How come? I think I can confidently say that, on most occasions of horrendous driving I come across, it is then evident that the driver is on / pissing about with a phone. They're a horrendous distraction in a vehicle.
And why do people deem it necessary to fiddle with a phone whilst driving anyway? There really is just no bloody need whatsoever!
Unless I'm mistaken Ray, you are a bit of a chronic lefty, so disagreeing with you would be my natural position... But I've got to say, you've nailed it.And why do people deem it necessary to fiddle with a phone whilst driving anyway? There really is just no bloody need whatsoever!
I used to use my mobile selectively before the ban came in, and I always believed I was safe while doing it.
I also, based on just a little more than wishful thinking, believe I'm one of the best road drivers on PH. Again, I may be wrong, and I won't side track the thread arguing this point.
So why don't I use the phone while driving now? Its just not that bloody important, and no call I'm likely to receive is going to be important enough to put others lives at risk.
Can phones be used safely? Sometimes by some drivers. Should they be used? No, not in my view. If it is a medical emergency then maybe, but in my experience way less than 1% of calls are.
Nigel Worc's said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
He was "using a mobile phone whilst driving". This is the offence I'm referring to. The judge made reference to his actions being as bad as txting. Do you condemn txting whilst driving or is this acceptable to you too?
Don't be obtuse !I disagree with the law on mobile phones because I've used them (as a phone, for nothing else) for about 25 years now.
Originally phones only did phone calls.
It is my experience that done sensibly it isn't an issue, I also manage to smoke, change gear, open and close the windows, adjust the climate control, use the car/van entertainment system etc etc etc.
What data there is suggests that any distraction caused by using a mobile phone is about the same if you're holding it or hands free.
If this data is correct, why is the latter legal ?
The legislation was brought in as it was identified that using a mobile phone whilst driving was a risk. Further, the risk was an avoidable - there were cheap methods of remote use.
The legislation could have been better written - and enforced. I have heard of cases where a driver has pulled to the side of the road to take a call and still been reported.
There can be no excuse for carrying a phone in a car without a hands-free capability. I've got an excellent sun-visor mounted device that was about £15 and can be moved from car to car. Voice activated calls are easy although I've never used it when driving.
The legislation could have been better written - and enforced. I have heard of cases where a driver has pulled to the side of the road to take a call and still been reported.
There can be no excuse for carrying a phone in a car without a hands-free capability. I've got an excellent sun-visor mounted device that was about £15 and can be moved from car to car. Voice activated calls are easy although I've never used it when driving.
swerni said:
Nigel doesn't do common sense, he's been on the phone for 25 years in his van, he knows best
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437509000292https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/...
Most of the studies show similar levels of distraction between handsfree conversations and handheld conversations. The issue being that the other side of the conversation has no understanding of the car environment, whereas a passenger (generally) does and will moderate the conversation based on that.
Data on texting is not as broad, but falls into line with data that dialling a phone is higher risk than talking, and also that performing cogitative tasks is much higher risk. One study had an extreme increase for texting vs calling
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2009/07/2009-571...
Derek Smith said:
The legislation was brought in as it was identified that using a mobile phone whilst driving was a risk. Further, the risk was an avoidable - there were cheap methods of remote use.
. . .
There can be no excuse for carrying a phone in a car without a hands-free capability. I've got an excellent sun-visor mounted device that was about £15 and can be moved from car to car. Voice activated calls are easy although I've never used it when driving.
It's undeniable that using a phone represents a potentially risky distraction and that it can be mitigated by (depending on your viewpoint) using a hands-free kit, or not making/taking any calls. It depends on the circumstances as to whether it's worse - or not - than the level of risk posed by having an animated discussion with a passenger, or listening to a very annoying radio broadcast, or driving past an attractive member of whatever gender you find attractive. Those distractions are not the subject of bans (yet) and it's very difficult to conceive of a situation where passers-by are regulated (!). . .
There can be no excuse for carrying a phone in a car without a hands-free capability. I've got an excellent sun-visor mounted device that was about £15 and can be moved from car to car. Voice activated calls are easy although I've never used it when driving.
This may change. The overriding safety angle appears to vanish with in-car radios, as there is an exemption in law for a two way radio which is 'designed or adapted for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages' and Ofcom states that if you are transmitting and receiving CB in the 27MHz range, you come within the exception and you are acting lawfully.
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q659.htm
Unless safety totalitarians have managed to get that changed recently. To be clear, I'm not advocating that drivers take unnecessary risks, merely agreeing with this particular snip of Derek's post:
Derek Smith said:
The legislation could have been better written - and enforced. I have heard of cases where a driver has pulled to the side of the road to take a call and still been reported.
There's a disproportionate amount of emphasis on road safety which is propped up by emotion rather than reason. There are other examples.
Compulsory U14 cycle helmet law in Jersey is based on emotion not evidence
Assertion and emotion are winning out over reason, this is bad news for safety.
wsurfa said:
Data on texting is not as broad, but falls into line with data that dialling a phone is higher risk than talking, and also that performing cogitative tasks is much higher risk. One study had an extreme increase for texting vs calling
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2009/07/2009-571...
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2009/07/2009-571...
Link said:
In the institute’s studies that included light vehicle drivers and truck drivers, manual manipulation of phones such as dialing and texting of the cell phone lead to a substantial increase in the risk of being involved in a safety-critical event such as a crash or near-crash
It seems unlikely that this study looked at the safety impact of texting in a stationary queue of traffic. See Derek's post, the bit about about enforcement.Johnnytheboy said:
Because punishment seems to be about the consequences of your actions, not your actions. I find this a bit odd.
I know where you are coming from but this is absolutely standard for most justice systems.It is part retribution based and part deterrent.
You can't lock up everyone who uses their phone but if people realise that unintentionally killing someone while using your phone means prison then they might think twice.
In short, consequences matter.
Hence "death by dangerous driving" has far more severe punishment than simply "dangerous driving".
Charging down the high street with a machete is less severely punished than charging down the high street with a machete and decapitating a toddler; manslaughter makes sense as a relevant category of crime.
walm said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Because punishment seems to be about the consequences of your actions, not your actions. I find this a bit odd.
I know where you are coming from but this is absolutely standard for most justice systems.It is part retribution based and part deterrent.
You can't lock up everyone who uses their phone but if people realise that unintentionally killing someone while using your phone means prison then they might think twice.
In short, consequences matter.
Hence "death by dangerous driving" has far more severe punishment than simply "dangerous driving".
Charging down the high street with a machete is less severely punished than charging down the high street with a machete and decapitating a toddler; manslaughter makes sense as a relevant category of crime.
Driver B has a momentary minor lapse in attention, to the same degree as Driver A, and a low speed collision with a cyclist occurs. The cyclist happens to fall badly and is clearly seriously hurt, they die on the way to hospital from a severe head injury. The driver goes to jail.
Presumably justice in this form of road safety poker matters more than justice applying to all parties.
turbobloke said:
Driver A has a momentary minor lapse in attention and a low speed collision with a cyclist occurs. The cyclist falls but without any major injury, gets up and remonstrates with the driver who apologises and both carry on with their journeys.
Driver B has a momentary minor lapse in attention, to the same degree as Driver A, and a low speed collision with a cyclist occurs. The cyclist happens to fall badly and is clearly seriously hurt, they die on the way to hospital from a severe head injury. The driver goes to jail.
Presumably justice in this form of road safety poker matters more than justice applying to all parties.
Least likely outcome given in example B. Driver B has a momentary minor lapse in attention, to the same degree as Driver A, and a low speed collision with a cyclist occurs. The cyclist happens to fall badly and is clearly seriously hurt, they die on the way to hospital from a severe head injury. The driver goes to jail.
Presumably justice in this form of road safety poker matters more than justice applying to all parties.
agtlaw said:
If you get 5 years then you serve 5 years. The first half in a prison, the second half on licence.
The home detention provisions (tag / curfew) are not supposed to apply to homicide offences, although I've heard anecdotally that "death by driving" offences are not dealt with as such by the prison authorities.
And before anyone says it, he will NOT be released early for good behaviour.
The rules may have changed since, but it certainly used to be that home detention did not apply to sentences of more than four years.The home detention provisions (tag / curfew) are not supposed to apply to homicide offences, although I've heard anecdotally that "death by driving" offences are not dealt with as such by the prison authorities.
And before anyone says it, he will NOT be released early for good behaviour.
Also worth noting that, if I recall correctly, a five year sentence will never be spent, so it will always have to be declared if asked for employment purposes etc.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff