Mobile Phone Use Detection Sign - Bit of a Blunt instrument
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-4477...
So a sign has been developed that can trigger if someone is on the phone, specifically if a mobile is in use AND it doesn't detect Bluetooth at the same time.
So this sign can be triggered if:
A passenger in the car is on their phone - perfectly legitimate.
Someone is using their phone with a wired headset - legitimate
You're on the phone, but you use something like an Apple Carplay / Android auto unit which does calls over a wire - the phone can be stowed awa in a container.
I'm all for reducing mobile use when travelling - smartphone and specifically social media use when driving is a cancer on society.
So a sign has been developed that can trigger if someone is on the phone, specifically if a mobile is in use AND it doesn't detect Bluetooth at the same time.
So this sign can be triggered if:
A passenger in the car is on their phone - perfectly legitimate.
Someone is using their phone with a wired headset - legitimate
You're on the phone, but you use something like an Apple Carplay / Android auto unit which does calls over a wire - the phone can be stowed awa in a container.
I'm all for reducing mobile use when travelling - smartphone and specifically social media use when driving is a cancer on society.
They could change the Law and just make it blanket illegal to use a mobile device in a car full stop. Yanks take the same approach with drink driving, no open alcohol containers allowed at all, so the passenger cant have a quick tinny on route, they go ape-s
t if they find and old empty can under a seat , and they do look. Interestingly they seem more bothered by this than actual drink driving, they turn a blind eye to a lot of that
t if they find and old empty can under a seat , and they do look. Interestingly they seem more bothered by this than actual drink driving, they turn a blind eye to a lot of thatMatthen said:
The tech is good. I am a fan.
The next stage is to hook it up to a camera that takes a mug shot of the driver.
Then, a bloke in an office looks at the picture and decides whether or not to issue a fine. Anything to get people off their sodding phones is a big plus imo.
No the tech is stupid, crap and pretty pointless. I am all for getting people off phones but this is not the way, it would take hundreds upon hundreds of photos a day, depending on where you put another that would thousands of photos a day, we don't have the man power to go through these images, also not to mention what would happen once the local scrotes work it out and start setting off on purpose.The next stage is to hook it up to a camera that takes a mug shot of the driver.
Then, a bloke in an office looks at the picture and decides whether or not to issue a fine. Anything to get people off their sodding phones is a big plus imo.
We could have tailgating cameras, now those would be useful. Even MLM sensors although that one is a bit tougher. As I already said, if you want to cut down on illegal phone use in cars (you cant stop the bluetooth or earbud users) then you need eyes on cars, its that simple!
Matthen said:
The tech is good. I am a fan.
The next stage is to hook it up to a camera that takes a mug shot of the driver.
Then, a bloke in an office looks at the picture and decides whether or not to issue a fine. Anything to get people off their sodding phones is a big plus imo.
Great idea. One problem. You've just taken a photo of an innocent driver and fined him for a passenger using a mobile phone. How can the technology distinguish who in the car is using the phone?The next stage is to hook it up to a camera that takes a mug shot of the driver.
Then, a bloke in an office looks at the picture and decides whether or not to issue a fine. Anything to get people off their sodding phones is a big plus imo.
I think the idea is that the drone in the office looks at the picture to see if the driver is on the phone. Can’t see the phone in hand, can’t be done.
Phone in the boot and receiving a call but going unanswered would also trigger this. Nice idea but has more holes than a very holey thing.
Phone in the boot and receiving a call but going unanswered would also trigger this. Nice idea but has more holes than a very holey thing.
donkmeister said:
Better solution would be a camera that detects any driver staring at their crotch, flashes up the reg on a big sign and everyone else is allowed to fling stuff at the car/driver.
Love this idea, see it all the time. Queued in traffic and the person in front is looking down into their lap, then up at traffic, then down, 'oh bugger' floors it to catch up with traffic, looks down again. I beep and then they look around, when they notice its me I get the abuse for calling them out on it. Only once has someone apologised and stopped doing it.
Councils will love idea, they will stick up loads of these signs around schools etc... like the happy/sad face signs.
Will it make a difference probably not...
unless a lot of ifs:
-if the system becomes HOTA approved (for which there is currently no HOTA procedure in place)
-if the law changes to allow them to have a camera and for the images to be sent to the fuzz.
-if the fuzz can even be arsed to enforce it due to all the manpower requirements to check the footage and the paperwork necessary to issue NIPs. I suspect the offence can't be decriminalised, which would see council able to enforce it and collect the £££ much like yellow box or bus lane offences.
JC
Will it make a difference probably not...
unless a lot of ifs:
-if the system becomes HOTA approved (for which there is currently no HOTA procedure in place)
-if the law changes to allow them to have a camera and for the images to be sent to the fuzz.
-if the fuzz can even be arsed to enforce it due to all the manpower requirements to check the footage and the paperwork necessary to issue NIPs. I suspect the offence can't be decriminalised, which would see council able to enforce it and collect the £££ much like yellow box or bus lane offences.
JC
aazer89 said:
Love this idea, see it all the time. Queued in traffic and the person in front is looking down into their lap, then up at traffic, then down, 'oh bugger' floors it to catch up with traffic, looks down again. I beep and then they look around, when they notice its me I get the abuse for calling them out on it.
Only once has someone apologised and stopped doing it.
Often I will look at my phone in traffic, not if it is at a traffic light sort of thing but when you're stopped for a minute at a time what is the harm?Only once has someone apologised and stopped doing it.
geeks said:
Matthen said:
The tech is good. I am a fan.
The next stage is to hook it up to a camera that takes a mug shot of the driver.
Then, a bloke in an office looks at the picture and decides whether or not to issue a fine. Anything to get people off their sodding phones is a big plus imo.
No the tech is stupid, crap and pretty pointless. I am all for getting people off phones but this is not the way, it would take hundreds upon hundreds of photos a day, depending on where you put another that would thousands of photos a day, we don't have the man power to go through these images, also not to mention what would happen once the local scrotes work it out and start setting off on purpose.The next stage is to hook it up to a camera that takes a mug shot of the driver.
Then, a bloke in an office looks at the picture and decides whether or not to issue a fine. Anything to get people off their sodding phones is a big plus imo.
We could have tailgating cameras, now those would be useful. Even MLM sensors although that one is a bit tougher. As I already said, if you want to cut down on illegal phone use in cars (you cant stop the bluetooth or earbud users) then you need eyes on cars, its that simple!
Both tailgating and MLM cameras could be achieved using the smart motorway cameras with a little bit of clever coding and clear definition in law, however there is no drive to do it.
MLM - has a car been detected in the lane to the left in the last N seconds, or is visible within N seconds up the road? No, store onward & rearward video frames and reg plate for fine.
Taligating - is car within 2 seconds of car in front of it? Yes, send driver a fine.
Issue is both lane hogging and tailgating are not clearly defined in law. Properly define them both with a distance/time metric, and watch the cameras pop up.
Matthen said:
If we haven't got the manpower to go through the pictures, why would we have the man power to have people sat in cars? Office space is cheaper and the sign has already ruled out a lot of the traffic going past. Further, machine learning could be applied to further rule out photographs.
Both tailgating and MLM cameras could be achieved using the smart motorway cameras with a little bit of clever coding and clear definition in law, however there is no drive to do it.
MLM - has a car been detected in the lane to the left in the last N seconds, or is visible within N seconds up the road? No, store onward & rearward video frames and reg plate for fine.
Taligating - is car within 2 seconds of car in front of it? Yes, send driver a fine.
Issue is both lane hogging and tailgating are not clearly defined in law. Properly define them both with a distance/time metric, and watch the cameras pop up.
I am good with all of this in principal. There is way more to MLM as they can sit in a queue of centre lane traffic all overtaking one slow mover and they could be moving up to move to the offside to overtake an MLM. Also 2 seconds is probably a bit harsh for tailgating these days. Recognition plus reaction can be less. Both tailgating and MLM cameras could be achieved using the smart motorway cameras with a little bit of clever coding and clear definition in law, however there is no drive to do it.
MLM - has a car been detected in the lane to the left in the last N seconds, or is visible within N seconds up the road? No, store onward & rearward video frames and reg plate for fine.
Taligating - is car within 2 seconds of car in front of it? Yes, send driver a fine.
Issue is both lane hogging and tailgating are not clearly defined in law. Properly define them both with a distance/time metric, and watch the cameras pop up.
As for the original post its just a sign that flashes if it detects a phone being used in a car, I don't think it's lack of discrimination is going to cause any issues to a driver not using a phone.
I wonder how it differentiates between mobile data being in use and a call being in use.
I suspect it doesn't
Lots of people will be using mobile data without bluetooth with Google maps when using the phone as a Sat Nav
I wonder how it determines that a bluetooth connection has been established with another device also....
I suspect it doesn't
Lots of people will be using mobile data without bluetooth with Google maps when using the phone as a Sat Nav
I wonder how it determines that a bluetooth connection has been established with another device also....
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff