Mobile phone use
Discussion
Why is it that many people seem to have a deep sense of hate towards someone on a mobile phone whilst driving?
Is it because it is fashionable to jump on this band wagon or because people have a deep feeling of social responsibility?
The use of a mobile was perfectly covered with the driving without due care law because it actually meant that it was really felt that your mobile phone use affected your driving ability.
However I fail to see how driving in all circumstances is affected by talking into a hand held mobile and, by the way, since when has it been necessary to give 100% focus to your driving??
Back in the real world people listen to the radio, a CD, MP3 player, maybe smoke a cigarette and even drink a coffee (after all its hard not to go to a garage these days and not have coffee sold to you!).
Where does this social responsibility end? I mean if I crash as a result of drinking coffee in my car and hurt someone do people sue me, BP petroleum for selling me my coffee or the manufacturer for giving me a cup holder and thus encouraging coffee into my vehicle??
Come on be honest we don't focus 100% when we drive and our emotions are not soully down to the use of a mobile. I use one now and will always use on in the car - when I feel its good to use it. Just like I will speed - when I feel its OK. And isn't that the point? Most here will drive over the posted limit and feel cool with that but mobile use thats a sure killer.
Point is the government have done a great PR job.
Is it because it is fashionable to jump on this band wagon or because people have a deep feeling of social responsibility?
The use of a mobile was perfectly covered with the driving without due care law because it actually meant that it was really felt that your mobile phone use affected your driving ability.
However I fail to see how driving in all circumstances is affected by talking into a hand held mobile and, by the way, since when has it been necessary to give 100% focus to your driving??
Back in the real world people listen to the radio, a CD, MP3 player, maybe smoke a cigarette and even drink a coffee (after all its hard not to go to a garage these days and not have coffee sold to you!).
Where does this social responsibility end? I mean if I crash as a result of drinking coffee in my car and hurt someone do people sue me, BP petroleum for selling me my coffee or the manufacturer for giving me a cup holder and thus encouraging coffee into my vehicle??
Come on be honest we don't focus 100% when we drive and our emotions are not soully down to the use of a mobile. I use one now and will always use on in the car - when I feel its good to use it. Just like I will speed - when I feel its OK. And isn't that the point? Most here will drive over the posted limit and feel cool with that but mobile use thats a sure killer.
Point is the government have done a great PR job.
It's just another thing to distract from the driving.
It does affect driving, but with the offence of without due care you have to show to what extent. By making it an offence in it's own right you don't have to.
If someone has a 10 minute conversation it may not cause unacceptable danger for any more than 10 seconds of that call.
For without due care, you'd have to witness the 10 seconds & provide evidence.
With it being it's own offence you don't need to wait for the danger, you can take action on any part of the call.
It adds nothing positive to the act of driving, only negative. So it should be discouraged.
It does affect driving, but with the offence of without due care you have to show to what extent. By making it an offence in it's own right you don't have to.
If someone has a 10 minute conversation it may not cause unacceptable danger for any more than 10 seconds of that call.
For without due care, you'd have to witness the 10 seconds & provide evidence.
With it being it's own offence you don't need to wait for the danger, you can take action on any part of the call.
It adds nothing positive to the act of driving, only negative. So it should be discouraged.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th March 11:58
vonhosen said:
It's just another thing to distract from the driving.
It does affect driving, but with the offence of without due care you have to show to what extent. By making it an offence in it's own right you don't have to.
If someone has a 10 minute conversation it may not cause unacceptable danger for any more than 10 seconds of that call.
For without due care, you'd have to witness the 10 seconds & provide evidence.
With it being it's own offence you don't need to wait for the danger, you can take action on any part of the call.
It adds nothing positive to the act of driving, only negative. So it should be discouraged.
It does affect driving, but with the offence of without due care you have to show to what extent. By making it an offence in it's own right you don't have to.
If someone has a 10 minute conversation it may not cause unacceptable danger for any more than 10 seconds of that call.
For without due care, you'd have to witness the 10 seconds & provide evidence.
With it being it's own offence you don't need to wait for the danger, you can take action on any part of the call.
It adds nothing positive to the act of driving, only negative. So it should be discouraged.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th March 11:58
If you witnessed someone whose driving appears to be relatively safe, would you exercise discretion if they were using a mobile, or would you be sure to ticket only if externally, their driving was affected by it?
Edited by princeperch on Saturday 10th March 12:03
princeperch said:
vonhosen said:
It's just another thing to distract from the driving.
It does affect driving, but with the offence of without due care you have to show to what extent. By making it an offence in it's own right you don't have to.
If someone has a 10 minute conversation it may not cause unacceptable danger for any more than 10 seconds of that call.
For without due care, you'd have to witness the 10 seconds & provide evidence.
With it being it's own offence you don't need to wait for the danger, you can take action on any part of the call.
It adds nothing positive to the act of driving, only negative. So it should be discouraged.
It does affect driving, but with the offence of without due care you have to show to what extent. By making it an offence in it's own right you don't have to.
If someone has a 10 minute conversation it may not cause unacceptable danger for any more than 10 seconds of that call.
For without due care, you'd have to witness the 10 seconds & provide evidence.
With it being it's own offence you don't need to wait for the danger, you can take action on any part of the call.
It adds nothing positive to the act of driving, only negative. So it should be discouraged.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th March 11:58
If you witnessed someone whose driving appears to be relatively safe, would you exercise discretion if they were using a mobile, or would you be sure to ticket only if externally, their driving was affected by it?
Edited by princeperch on Saturday 10th March 12:03
If I wasn't doing something that I considered more important, I'd ticket.
p490kvp said:
Why is it that many people seem to have a deep sense of hate towards someone on a mobile phone whilst driving?
Bigotry, anti-car and anti-driver sentiment, a lack of understanding over the difference between safety and legality and the chasm between these. Or any combination.
Chief Superintendent Kenny Scott of Strathclyde Porlace is probably a good judge of when it;s safe to use a hand-held device, but his fellow porlace officers have just relieved him of £60 in return for 3 points and 15 minutes of fame.
The law is an ass - no need to imitate it.
Person in Cheshire (Warrington) was given £60 fine und three point on licence .. for eating a cheese und pickle muffin whilst driving. According the Cheshire police - the mobile phone law extend to eating und drinking you coffee whilst driving.
I happen to like savouring my food.. so I stop so that if I am having "picnic in the car" .. I can do so und enjoy my food. (Have usually had my Weetabix before I set off though.. but do have my chocs handy und ready to eat
) Und since if I do choose to chatter away on phone.. I also park up to do so 
I happen to like savouring my food.. so I stop so that if I am having "picnic in the car" .. I can do so und enjoy my food. (Have usually had my Weetabix before I set off though.. but do have my chocs handy und ready to eat
) Und since if I do choose to chatter away on phone.. I also park up to do so vonhosen said:
It's just another thing to distract from the driving.
It does affect driving, but with the offence of without due care you have to show to what extent. By making it an offence in it's own right you don't have to.
If someone has a 10 minute conversation it may not cause unacceptable danger for any more than 10 seconds of that call.
For without due care, you'd have to witness the 10 seconds & provide evidence.
With it being it's own offence you don't need to wait for the danger, you can take action on any part of the call.
It adds nothing positive to the act of driving, only negative. So it should be discouraged.
It does affect driving, but with the offence of without due care you have to show to what extent. By making it an offence in it's own right you don't have to.
If someone has a 10 minute conversation it may not cause unacceptable danger for any more than 10 seconds of that call.
For without due care, you'd have to witness the 10 seconds & provide evidence.
With it being it's own offence you don't need to wait for the danger, you can take action on any part of the call.
It adds nothing positive to the act of driving, only negative. So it should be discouraged.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th March 11:58
I am in absolute agreement with most of the points you make although when you write
"For without due care you'd have to witness the 10seconds & provide evidence"
as a negative point - doesn't that make you understand why the public are so depressed by our system? I mean come on if the use of a mobile has made someones driving so bad don't you guys want to take that evidence and do something about it? It seems to me that our police are simply processing bits of paper to generate a fee income. Bit like lawyers and accountants.
How can that ever make for a better place to live? Problem is I use my phone whilst driving, my phone is a big part of my job and whilst it may take part of my mind off driving I still feel I am in good safe control of my vehicle (I mean take Friday - must have been on the phone for a good hour while driving).
Seems to me the only reason given to change from the due care law was simply because it is an easier prosecution..
Final question - what part of being on a mobile is the distraction from driving? Is it the conversation, the looking to dial a number or the holding of the phone?
p490kvp said:
vonhosen said:
It's just another thing to distract from the driving.
It does affect driving, but with the offence of without due care you have to show to what extent. By making it an offence in it's own right you don't have to.
If someone has a 10 minute conversation it may not cause unacceptable danger for any more than 10 seconds of that call.
For without due care, you'd have to witness the 10 seconds & provide evidence.
With it being it's own offence you don't need to wait for the danger, you can take action on any part of the call.
It adds nothing positive to the act of driving, only negative. So it should be discouraged.
It does affect driving, but with the offence of without due care you have to show to what extent. By making it an offence in it's own right you don't have to.
If someone has a 10 minute conversation it may not cause unacceptable danger for any more than 10 seconds of that call.
For without due care, you'd have to witness the 10 seconds & provide evidence.
With it being it's own offence you don't need to wait for the danger, you can take action on any part of the call.
It adds nothing positive to the act of driving, only negative. So it should be discouraged.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th March 11:58
I am in absolute agreement with most of the points you make although when you write
"For without due care you'd have to witness the 10seconds & provide evidence"
as a negative point - doesn't that make you understand why the public are so depressed by our system? I mean come on if the use of a mobile has made someones driving so bad don't you guys want to take that evidence and do something about it? It seems to me that our police are simply processing bits of paper to generate a fee income. Bit like lawyers and accountants.
How can that ever make for a better place to live? Problem is I use my phone whilst driving, my phone is a big part of my job and whilst it may take part of my mind off driving I still feel I am in good safe control of my vehicle (I mean take Friday - must have been on the phone for a good hour while driving).
Seems to me the only reason given to change from the due care law was simply because it is an easier prosecution..
Final question - what part of being on a mobile is the distraction from driving? Is it the conversation, the looking to dial a number or the holding of the phone?
If I witness the badly affected driving whilst using the phone, then I'll report for the more serious offence.
If I witness phone use without the 10 seconds of danger, then I'll report for the lesser offence.
Samed with speeding.
Dangerous speed means you'll be reported for the more serious offence, whilst exceeding the limit by an unaccpetable margin without evidence of danger, results in a report for speeding.
Answer to final question = it could be any.
You can be reported for failing to be in proper control for the use of a non hand held mobile where there is evidence of the offence.
Best thing is let it go to asnwer phone & make a decision about how urgent it is for you to find out who the caller was & respond. Then find a safe place to pull over to do that if you so wish.
I personally think they should have gone further with the legislation than they did.
Most drivers consider themselves a safe driver, right up to & often after the collision. It couldn't be down to them after all. The problem with poor practice, is that it doesn't always result in a collision & this just serves to justify to the diver (often falsely) that it is acceptable & safe practice. Until the collision happens & then they find it hard to accept the part they & their practices played in it. After all they've been doing it for 10 years without an accident, only this time circumstances weren't so forgiving.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th March 14:30
Some interesting points made here. As a slight digress, does the mobile phone law extend to Citizens Band radio use?
Also perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how there would appear to be a waiver for Cab drivers and emergency services drivers in this respect. Surely if phone use gives rise to an unnaceptable level of risk whilst driving then it should be outlawed universally.
Or not? What say you learned ladies and gentleman?
Also perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how there would appear to be a waiver for Cab drivers and emergency services drivers in this respect. Surely if phone use gives rise to an unnaceptable level of risk whilst driving then it should be outlawed universally.
Or not? What say you learned ladies and gentleman?
Stephen Pook said:
Some interesting points made here. As a slight digress, does the mobile phone law extend to Citizens Band radio use?
Also perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how there would appear to be a waiver for Cab drivers and emergency services drivers in this respect. Surely if phone use gives rise to an unnaceptable level of risk whilst driving then it should be outlawed universally.
Or not? What say you learned ladies and gentleman?
Also perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how there would appear to be a waiver for Cab drivers and emergency services drivers in this respect. Surely if phone use gives rise to an unnaceptable level of risk whilst driving then it should be outlawed universally.
Or not? What say you learned ladies and gentleman?
Two way radio isn't included.
Police & cab drivers can't use a handheld mobile.
Thanks for the reply. I had heard that that was the case but I wasn't sure.
I would find it fascinating to hear the rationale that concludes that the use of two-way radio whilst driving is somehow less distracting or hazardous than the use of a mobile phone. Perhaps it would be possible to modify a mobile phone such that it must be operated in a similar way to a two-way radio, (I'm no electronics expert but I believe mobiles work on the principle of information being carried on radio waves).
I appreciate this all rather ridiculous but there again the exemptions previously mentioned do not seem to be a great deal more credible... Just a thought.
I would find it fascinating to hear the rationale that concludes that the use of two-way radio whilst driving is somehow less distracting or hazardous than the use of a mobile phone. Perhaps it would be possible to modify a mobile phone such that it must be operated in a similar way to a two-way radio, (I'm no electronics expert but I believe mobiles work on the principle of information being carried on radio waves).
I appreciate this all rather ridiculous but there again the exemptions previously mentioned do not seem to be a great deal more credible... Just a thought.
Stephen Pook said:
Thanks for the reply. I had heard that that was the case but I wasn't sure.
I would find it fascinating to hear the rationale that concludes that the use of two-way radio whilst driving is somehow less distracting or hazardous than the use of a mobile phone. Perhaps it would be possible to modify a mobile phone such that it must be operated in a similar way to a two-way radio, (I'm no electronics expert but I believe mobiles work on the principle of information being carried on radio waves).
I appreciate this all rather ridiculous but there again the exemptions previously mentioned do not seem to be a great deal more credible... Just a thought.
I would find it fascinating to hear the rationale that concludes that the use of two-way radio whilst driving is somehow less distracting or hazardous than the use of a mobile phone. Perhaps it would be possible to modify a mobile phone such that it must be operated in a similar way to a two-way radio, (I'm no electronics expert but I believe mobiles work on the principle of information being carried on radio waves).
I appreciate this all rather ridiculous but there again the exemptions previously mentioned do not seem to be a great deal more credible... Just a thought.
I suspect it is at least in part because using a radio and driving is part of the training and an expected skill in its own right for emergency services drivers?
Mmmmm.. I agree it would be sensible to train and develop the skills of those who may be required to use a radio whilst driving as a part of their job, but in reality is any such training given? To cab drivers? Could not anyone enrol on such a course and become qualified to drive safely whilst using a radio?
My curiosity lies in the distinction between the relative levels of hazard that the use of a phone and that of a two way radio produce. Assuming of course that there is some reason behind this distinction that was considered prior to bringing about the legislation.
Still not convinced.
My curiosity lies in the distinction between the relative levels of hazard that the use of a phone and that of a two way radio produce. Assuming of course that there is some reason behind this distinction that was considered prior to bringing about the legislation.
Still not convinced.
Stephen Pook said:
Thanks for the reply. I had heard that that was the case but I wasn't sure.
I would find it fascinating to hear the rationale that concludes that the use of two-way radio whilst driving is somehow less distracting or hazardous than the use of a mobile phone. Perhaps it would be possible to modify a mobile phone such that it must be operated in a similar way to a two-way radio, (I'm no electronics expert but I believe mobiles work on the principle of information being carried on radio waves).
I appreciate this all rather ridiculous but there again the exemptions previously mentioned do not seem to be a great deal more credible... Just a thought.
I would find it fascinating to hear the rationale that concludes that the use of two-way radio whilst driving is somehow less distracting or hazardous than the use of a mobile phone. Perhaps it would be possible to modify a mobile phone such that it must be operated in a similar way to a two-way radio, (I'm no electronics expert but I believe mobiles work on the principle of information being carried on radio waves).
I appreciate this all rather ridiculous but there again the exemptions previously mentioned do not seem to be a great deal more credible... Just a thought.
Apparently the way the brain deals with press to talk communication is very different to a phone conversation.
vonhosen said:
Stephen Pook said:
Thanks for the reply. I had heard that that was the case but I wasn't sure.
I would find it fascinating to hear the rationale that concludes that the use of two-way radio whilst driving is somehow less distracting or hazardous than the use of a mobile phone. Perhaps it would be possible to modify a mobile phone such that it must be operated in a similar way to a two-way radio, (I'm no electronics expert but I believe mobiles work on the principle of information being carried on radio waves).
I appreciate this all rather ridiculous but there again the exemptions previously mentioned do not seem to be a great deal more credible... Just a thought.
I would find it fascinating to hear the rationale that concludes that the use of two-way radio whilst driving is somehow less distracting or hazardous than the use of a mobile phone. Perhaps it would be possible to modify a mobile phone such that it must be operated in a similar way to a two-way radio, (I'm no electronics expert but I believe mobiles work on the principle of information being carried on radio waves).
I appreciate this all rather ridiculous but there again the exemptions previously mentioned do not seem to be a great deal more credible... Just a thought.
Apparently the way the brain deals with press to talk communication is very different to a phone conversation.
TripleS said:
WildCat said:
I happen to like savouring my food.. so I stop so that if I am having "picnic in the car" .. I can do so und enjoy my food. (Have usually had my Weetabix before I set off though..
Oh, I felt sure you would be a 'three Shredded Wheat' type lady.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I could always have won the bet per an advert once which betted I could not eat three.
I always could 
.. und I am slim .. (but am told I curve in the right places ) Und 
I am camera shy as well as scamera shy. I prefer to be behind the lens .. I do take some fairly OK photos of the scenery around here .. so am told. But ... I tend to eat at mealtimes .. chew my food properly (ist how you keep slim by the way.. there ist peer reviewed research to back this
und chewing also break the food down into digestible "fuel" und keep the internal plumbing system in order und it also make body not want to eat more too. ) But back to topic ...
Butty in question was one of those big quarter flour cake muffin ploughman types which ist sold by the "every little help shop"
It ist a lot larger than the diagonally cut sliced bread variety ... (you English.. so boring und predictable 
(
diving under 
) you do not have the butty choice which we have back home... with choice of black, rye, famrhouse, pumpernickel, malted, granary, wholemeal, baguette, walnut und date, olive, with varying butters from light to full creamy .. salted und unsalted.. und loadsa different fillings. ) But it was huger butty than the dreaded Handy in reality. Much bigger than the lippy he managed to "have a rant about in paper"
(I do not apply my make up in car either. I am fairly organised ... und I only wear lippy anyway - I have naturally long eyelashes to flutter at BiB if in bother ) That ist why I think he got done for eating this wedge.
As for the Handy phone.. I lose count of the times I have been walked into when folk are engrossed in conversation .. never mind
in their cars or worse .. on their bicycles (it should also be banned for cyclists as I observed one wobbling rather dangerously today. He was in front of me. I held back in case as he was veering all over the place 
Und then rode over a mini roundabout without even looking und was jolly lucky that van did not collide with him as he approach from right. The van driver was not on Handy.. but I knew that he was turning air blue in his van at time from the fist shaking I have never held a phone anyway when driving ... or eaten an apple or a butty or swigged water whilst driving.. so have never developed this "multi-task skill of which only "chatty phone mobilists" (
- made up word .. I play with your language ) seem to have "mastered" . But ist more really about the degree of the conversation und whether or not gear changes und steering are compromised badly und how far all this also compromises COAST principles. Vanhosen said:
Apparently the way the brain deals with press to talk communication is very different to a phone conversation.
Call me a sceptic but I think the only thing seems to be apparent is that you or someone else has just made that up! Don't get me wrong I'm not having a dig at you VH, I daresay there is some dubious research that concludes this, but it is like saying drinking coffee is safer than eating a sandwhich whilst driving because you don't have to chew!
Even less convinced. Still an interesting debate though!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff