Was I being too Harsh? -Driving whilst using phone

[Streetcop]

I never interrupt...my siren however does....(it really has no manners, you know)

Click here to see what I mean:

www.met.police.uk/audio/siren2.wav



Street

>> Edited by Streetcop on Sunday 26th September 13:54

[ratboy205]

Hi everyone,
I must admit, I am still stunned that people still use a mobile whilst driving, and with all the warnings and knowledge of the risks involved. why? Are these people so arrogant to the fact that 'it won't happen to me', or so utterly selfish of the consequences to someone else's life?
Maybe , if this was like the 'States , where folks got 20 years for wiping someone else out , the irresponsible would think twice, about phones at the wheel, let it ring off, pull over and phone back......

[gh0st]

ratboy205 said:

Hi everyone, I must admit, I am still stunned that people still use a mobile whilst driving, and with all the warnings and knowledge of the risks involved. why? Are these people so arrogant to the fact that 'it won't happen to me', or so utterly selfish of the consequences to someone else's life? Maybe , if this was like the 'States , where folks got 20 years for wiping someone else out , the irresponsible would think twice, about phones at the wheel, let it ring off, pull over and phone back......

But thats the point - it DOESNT happen to everyone. When you speed do you automatically kill someone? No. When you use the phone appropriately do you automatically kill someone? No.

Hysterical law put in place by a nanny hysterical government.

[ScoobyZoom]

Christ.... I'm with you gh0st

[Apache]

kin right

[TripleS]

ScoobyZoom said:

Christ.... I'm with you gh0st

Me too - again - unsurprisingly.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Streetcop]

ratboy205 said:

Hi everyone, I must admit, I am still stunned that people still use a mobile whilst driving, and with all the warnings and knowledge of the risks involved. why? Are these people so arrogant to the fact that 'it won't happen to me', or so utterly selfish of the consequences to someone else's life? Maybe , if this was like the 'States , where folks got 20 years for wiping someone else out , the irresponsible would think twice, about phones at the wheel, let it ring off, pull over and phone back......

I'm with you Ratboy.....don't worry mate...I put pen to paper evertime I stop someone on the phone.

Street

[gh0st]

Fine.

Lets put this to the test.

I will (hypothetically of course) make a phone call of approximatly 1 or 2 minutes long on my way home from work this evening.

If I kill / maim / cause any kind of accident while doing this, I will give 50% of my wage packet to a charity of choice for 2 months. Thats over £1000 there.

Hypothetically speaking of course

Streetcop - no one doubts that you will give them a ticket if you catch them, same as no one will doubt that a scamera will give them a ticket if they exceed the limit. The point I am trying to make is that these minor infractions of the law do not automatically kill people and its stupid to turn round and say "you must not use a phone because you will kill someone" because YOU WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY DO SO!

Just gives the morally high ground challanged something to forfill their pathetic lives with and something else to moan about...

[Streetcop]

The problem Gh0st, and I agree with your points, is that not everyone can either drive safely using the phone or just limit themselves to a call's duration of a minute or so.

[gh0st]

Streetcop said:

The problem Gh0st, and I agree with your points, is that not everyone can either drive safely using the phone or just limit themselves to a call's duration of a minute or so.

So in that case, like everything should be, why dont we remove this small percentage from the road until they can take retraining?

Dishing out fines is the obvious and rather repetative solution that Labia wishes to inflict on us...

[Cooperman]

So let's try to put a bit of perspective into this.
We know that between 3% and 5% of all KSI accidents are caused by drivers exceeding the posted speed limit. The actual figure is open to some debate, but it seems as though that's where the true figure lies.
Now, before the phone legislation, what proportion of all KSI accidents were caused by drivers actually making a phone call at the time of the accident.
If the figure for phone caused accidents was less than 3% to 5%, and it almost certainly was, then far from condemning everyone who uses a mobile whilst driving, we should be campaigning for more rigorous enforcement of speeding laws - but, of course, we don't do that.
So whilst many of those posting on here are advocating leniency in respect of speed limit enforcement, they are draconian in their condemnation of mobile phone users who, in practice, probably cause less KSI accidents than even the small minority of drivers exceeding the speed limit.
I used a hand-held mobile from 1986 until the ban, and can't remember ever having even a minor fright or causing anyone any problems. I have driven in excess of the speed limit many times during that same period without accident as well.
You can't simply say let's allow a bit of speeding as it only causes 3% of accidents, but be draconian about hand-held phones which may cause, say, 1% of accidents.
Let's have a bit of common sense here, please.

[gh0st]

Cooperman said:

So let's try to put a bit of perspective into this. We know that between 3% and 5% of all KSI accidents are caused by drivers exceeding the posted speed limit. The actual figure is open to some debate, but it seems as though that's where the true figure lies. Now, before the phone legislation, what proportion of all KSI accidents were caused by drivers actually making a phone call at the time of the accident. If the figure for phone caused accidents was less than 3% to 5%, and it almost certainly was, then far from condemning everyone who uses a mobile whilst driving, we should be campaigning for more rigorous enforcement of speeding laws - but, of course, we don't do that. So whilst many of those posting on here are advocating leniency in respect of speed limit enforcement, they are draconian in their condemnation of mobile phone users who, in practice, probably cause less KSI accidents than even the small minority of drivers exceeding the speed limit. I used a hand-held mobile from 1986 until the ban, and can't remember ever having even a minor fright or causing anyone any problems. I have driven in excess of the speed limit many times during that same period without accident as well. You can't simply say let's allow a bit of speeding as it only causes 3% of accidents, but be draconian about hand-held phones which may cause, say, 1% of accidents. Let's have a bit of common sense here, please.

spot on!

[blademan]

gotta be honest guys 'n' gals, this thread has been TOTALLY AND UTTERLY WORKED TO DEATH. I mean 6 pages long over a phone FFS!!

The fact is using a ( hands on )mobile whilst driving is illegal. It should be. FACT:- You cannot possibly concentrate 100% on your driving and use a phone. Yes some people are better at multi tasking whilst driving; others are not. The law cannot discriminate. It only takes a second of lapse of concentration to have an accident. Please, can we finish this boring thread and get on with something more worthwhile!!
[/duckin for cover mode on]

[gh0st]

blademan said:

gotta be honest guys 'n' gals, this thread has been TOTALLY AND UTTERLY WORKED TO DEATH. I mean 6 pages long over a phone FFS!! The fact is using a ( hands on )mobile whilst driving is illegal. It should be. FACT:- You cannot possibly concentrate 100% on your driving and use a phone. Yes some people are better at multi tasking whilst driving; others are not. The law cannot discriminate. It only takes a second of lapse of concentration to have an accident. Please, can we finish this boring thread and get on with something more worthwhile!! [/duckin for cover mode on]

Actually you technicaly just started it again. To parallel - FACT:- You cannot possibly be 100% safe on your driving while speeding. Yes some people are better at multi tasking whilst driving; others are not. The law cannot discriminate. It only takes a second of lapse of concentration to have an accident.

OR

FACT:- You cannot possibly concentrate 100% on your driving and operate your stereo. Yes some people are better at multi tasking whilst driving; others are not. The law cannot discriminate. It only takes a second of lapse of concentration to have an accident.

OR

FACT:- You cannot possibly concentrate 100% on your driving and light a cigeratte. Yes some people are better at multi tasking whilst driving; others are not. The law cannot discriminate. It only takes a second of lapse of concentration to have an accident.


Etc.....

So why are there not laws for the latter two?

[Fat Audi 80]

gh0st said:

Fine. Lets put this to the test. I will (hypothetically of course) make a phone call of approximatly 1 or 2 minutes long on my way home from work this evening. If I kill / maim / cause any kind of accident while doing this, I will give 50% of my wage packet to a charity of choice for 2 months. Thats over £1000 there. Hypothetically speaking of course Streetcop - no one doubts that you will give them a ticket if you catch them, same as no one will doubt that a scamera will give them a ticket if they exceed the limit. The point I am trying to make is that these minor infractions of the law do not automatically kill people and its stupid to turn round and say "you must not use a phone because you will kill someone" because YOU WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY DO SO! Just gives the morally high ground challanged something to forfill their pathetic lives with and something else to moan about...

Oh yes, very scientific. Why don't you try the same think with speeding or leaning your head out the window or Russion roulette?

It won't cuase an accident 99% of the time, its the 1% that we are trying to emlinate. If you read the safespeed website (IIRC) is takes an AVERAGE of 300 years driving to statistically stand a chance of losing your life in a car crash. Its the odds we are trying to reduce with these laws.....

HTH

Steve.

[blademan]

gh0st said:

So why are there not laws for the latter two?

I see where you are coming from gh0st, but I seem to remember a few years ago that someone got pulled because his wife opened a bar of chocolate for her driver husband. There were outcrys at that, which I agreed with. But, changing a cd takes a short amount of time; whereas some mobile phone conversations last for ages. The longer the distraction, the higher the risk potential. Ooops. You were right. I have re-opened the thread
Seriously mate, my point was that I dont think the subject warranted 6 pages. The law is in place. You have to agree with it. But I do see you point re: yeah well, what about changing a cd etc etc. You could however apply this to any distraction whilst driving. Having a mobile phone conversation that lasts a while IMHO is POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS, and the law is correct. Believe me, gh0st, I dont take ill thought out laws lying down, but this one is not one of them

[swilly]

Cooperman said:

So let's try to put a bit of perspective into this. We know that between 3% and 5% of all KSI accidents......

Whooah there horsey.

Who cares about KSI's and statistics.

Its the mupper on the phone who scratches the paintwork on me motor, or dents me behind, or crushes me nose pod cos the frucker is too busy telling his bint-bird that he's only down the frucking road, will be home in 30 seconds and so to put dinner on.

These are the accidents the cops cant be arsed to attend, and you are left to sort it out with your insurance company and his.

After, that is, he has told his insurance company that it was YOU who crashed into him.

Nothing but grief, and WHY?

Because some pompous arrogant fart-head couldnt keep his fabulous life on hold for just 30 frucking seconds.

Mobile phone use distracts attention.
Speeding encourages attention.

There's nothing else to say.

[Cooperman]

swilly said:

Cooperman said: So let's try to put a bit of perspective into this. We know that between 3% and 5% of all KSI accidents...... Whooah there horsey. Who cares about KSI's and statistics. Its the mupper on the phone who scratches the paintwork on me motor, or dents me behind, or crushes me nose pod cos the frucker is too busy telling his bint-bird that he's only down the frucking road, will be home in 30 seconds and so to put dinner on. These are the accidents the cops cant be arsed to attend, and you are left to sort it out with your insurance company and his. After, that is, he has told his insurance company that it was YOU who crashed into him. Nothing but grief, and WHY? Because some pompous arrogant fart-head couldnt keep his fabulous life on hold for just 30 frucking seconds. Mobile phone use distracts attention. Speeding encourages attention. There's nothing else to say.

And what about the 'pompous, arrogant fart-head' who drives right up my rear bumper because I'm driving at the NSL and he wants to get home 10 seconds earlier by breaking the speed limit!
Please tell me where the difference is in safety terms.

[Fat Audi 80]

blademan said:

gotta be honest guys 'n' gals, this thread has been TOTALLY AND UTTERLY WORKED TO DEATH. I mean 6 pages long over a phone FFS!! The fact is using a ( hands on )mobile whilst driving is illegal. It should be. FACT:- You cannot possibly concentrate 100% on your driving and use a phone. Yes some people are better at multi tasking whilst driving; others are not. The law cannot discriminate. It only takes a second of lapse of concentration to have an accident. Please, can we finish this boring thread and get on with something more worthwhile!! [/duckin for cover mode on]

I was enjoying myself...

[Fat Audi 80]

swilly said:

Cooperman said: So let's try to put a bit of perspective into this. We know that between 3% and 5% of all KSI accidents...... Whooah there horsey. Who cares about KSI's and statistics. Its the mupper on the phone who scratches the paintwork on me motor, or dents me behind, or crushes me nose pod cos the frucker is too busy telling his bint-bird that he's only down the frucking road, will be home in 30 seconds and so to put dinner on. These are the accidents the cops cant be arsed to attend, and you are left to sort it out with your insurance company and his. After, that is, he has told his insurance company that it was YOU who crashed into him. Nothing but grief, and WHY? Because some pompous arrogant fart-head couldnt keep his fabulous life on hold for just 30 frucking seconds. Mobile phone use distracts attention. Speeding encourages attention. There's nothing else to say.

Now why didn't I just say that in the first place???

Cheers,

Steve.