More drivers using hand-held mobiles...
Discussion
What a surprise!
And the answer to combat this?
More 'campaign publicity' by the Gov and the Police is suggested by the likes of Edmund King RAC and others 'to get the message across'. Oh dear.
ie more waste of money on ineffective ideas.
Nowt so blind as those that cannot see.
Simple answer: VISIBLE POLICE PRESENCE.
And the answer to combat this?
More 'campaign publicity' by the Gov and the Police is suggested by the likes of Edmund King RAC and others 'to get the message across'. Oh dear.
ie more waste of money on ineffective ideas.
Nowt so blind as those that cannot see.
Simple answer: VISIBLE POLICE PRESENCE.
The problem increases because the law is a soft touch. Confiscation of the phone would deter people, one of the best deterrents is knowing someone who has had the book thrown at them. Our whinging excuse culture would never allow such draconian measures tough.
Anyone riding a bike through town knows this hazzard, a slight plus is that the arrogant and stupid actually stand out while on the phone and can steer well clear once spotted.
Anyone riding a bike through town knows this hazzard, a slight plus is that the arrogant and stupid actually stand out while on the phone and can steer well clear once spotted.
dandarez said:
What a surprise!
And the answer to combat this?
More 'campaign publicity' by the Gov and the Police is suggested by the likes of Edmund King RAC and others 'to get the message across'. Oh dear.
ie more waste of money on ineffective ideas.
Nowt so blind as those that cannot see.
Simple answer: VISIBLE POLICE PRESENCE.
How about the Police rewarding pedestrians who submit photos of offenders? Not quite a citizens arrest, but sort of.And the answer to combat this?
More 'campaign publicity' by the Gov and the Police is suggested by the likes of Edmund King RAC and others 'to get the message across'. Oh dear.
ie more waste of money on ineffective ideas.
Nowt so blind as those that cannot see.
Simple answer: VISIBLE POLICE PRESENCE.
Over here in Sweden the rules are extremely unclear, it's frowned upon but not illegal. Yes, I've picked up once or twice, am I proud of myself, no; does it make me a worse driver, absolutely.
I hope and pray that when Bluetooth links become standard on all cars that the problem gets solved with technology. No excuses then. It will definitely be on my list of things to have on the next car I buy.
I hope and pray that when Bluetooth links become standard on all cars that the problem gets solved with technology. No excuses then. It will definitely be on my list of things to have on the next car I buy.
Jefftav said:
Excuse my ignorance, Is it possible for car manufacturers or phone providers to block a signal unless a phone is on bluetooth so even if you wanted to you couldn't use your phone unless you are on handsfree. Just a thought? 
I can't think of a way, because the phone doesn't know it's in a car. I suppose you could have the car's bluetooth tell the phone not to function, but you could just switch your phone's bluetooth off. Besides, that would massively inconvenience passengers using their phone legally.
oilspill said:
The problem increases because the law is a soft touch. Confiscation of the phone would deter people, one of the best deterrents is knowing someone who has had the book thrown at them. Our whinging excuse culture would never allow such draconian measures tough.
Anyone riding a bike through town knows this hazzard, a slight plus is that the arrogant and stupid actually stand out while on the phone and can steer well clear once spotted.
Alternatively, nick people for bad driving instead of trying to specifically legislate out every possible bad behaviour.Anyone riding a bike through town knows this hazzard, a slight plus is that the arrogant and stupid actually stand out while on the phone and can steer well clear once spotted.
Why shouldn't I talk on the phone, driving in a straight line on the motorway, a safe distance behind the vehicle in front? There isn't a specific law against picking my nose or having a w
k or doing my makeup or eating my lunch, but any of those things could lead to me driving without due care and attention, or carelessly, or worse.Yes, there have been some horrendous accidents because people were on the phone. There have been accidents (and will continue to be, until the end of motoring as we know it) caused by people falling asleep at the wheel. Number one cause of accidents on the motorway (or if it isn't, it's pretty darned near the top). And yet it's not specifically illegal "to be or to cause someone to be attending the controls of a mechanised motor conveyance whilst in a somnulistic state of mind". And these people get done for dangerous driving, as is right and proper.
There should be an ad campaign; "We don't care why you're driving badly. We're going to nick you anyway."
Hitler Hadrump said:
Jefftav said:
Excuse my ignorance, Is it possible for car manufacturers or phone providers to block a signal unless a phone is on bluetooth so even if you wanted to you couldn't use your phone unless you are on handsfree. Just a thought?
I can't think of a way, because the phone doesn't know it's in a car. I suppose you could have the car's bluetooth tell the phone not to function, but you could just switch your phone's bluetooth off. Besides, that would massively inconvenience passengers using their phone legally.
As someone else says, the problem is also that passengers can legally use their phones, any in car technology to prevent drivers phoning will have to fight against that.
I have a £9.95 Bluetooth headset thingy that goes over the ear.
Very simple and legal.
But this morning I saw a police car doing at least 70 in a 50, blues and twos going and he had his two-way phone handset stuck to his ear driving with one hand!
Please tell me why they specifically made that NOT illegal?
Or perhaps why "Ordinary" people don't give a st when they feel unfairly treated?
Very simple and legal.
But this morning I saw a police car doing at least 70 in a 50, blues and twos going and he had his two-way phone handset stuck to his ear driving with one hand!
Please tell me why they specifically made that NOT illegal?
Or perhaps why "Ordinary" people don't give a s
t when they feel unfairly treated?llewop said:
Hitler Hadrump said:
Jefftav said:
Excuse my ignorance, Is it possible for car manufacturers or phone providers to block a signal unless a phone is on bluetooth so even if you wanted to you couldn't use your phone unless you are on handsfree. Just a thought?
I can't think of a way, because the phone doesn't know it's in a car. I suppose you could have the car's bluetooth tell the phone not to function, but you could just switch your phone's bluetooth off. Besides, that would massively inconvenience passengers using their phone legally.
I think the issue is phone companies don't give a 5hit about road safety, all the have to do to cover their back is in page 495 of the user manual write something like "if the country you are using this phone in has laws preventing you from doing so whilst driving, you must obide by these rules, yours faithfully Nokia"
Thanks for the explanations and reasons phones can't be isolated whilst driving. I tend to agree there are too many distractions whilst driving a car and I think the police can prosecute you if you are not in full control of your vehicle whether that is eating a mars bar or talking on a phone or using a sat nav whilst on the move.
All Drivers do need to wise up to the fact that the have a responsibilty to others and concentrate on what is happening around them!
All Drivers do need to wise up to the fact that the have a responsibilty to others and concentrate on what is happening around them!
CommanderJameson said:
oilspill said:
The problem increases because the law is a soft touch. Confiscation of the phone would deter people, one of the best deterrents is knowing someone who has had the book thrown at them. Our whinging excuse culture would never allow such draconian measures tough.
Anyone riding a bike through town knows this hazzard, a slight plus is that the arrogant and stupid actually stand out while on the phone and can steer well clear once spotted.
Alternatively, nick people for bad driving instead of trying to specifically legislate out every possible bad behaviour.Anyone riding a bike through town knows this hazzard, a slight plus is that the arrogant and stupid actually stand out while on the phone and can steer well clear once spotted.
Why shouldn't I talk on the phone, driving in a straight line on the motorway, a safe distance behind the vehicle in front? There isn't a specific law against picking my nose or having a w
k or doing my makeup or eating my lunch, but any of those things could lead to me driving without due care and attention, or carelessly, or worse.Yes, there have been some horrendous accidents because people were on the phone. There have been accidents (and will continue to be, until the end of motoring as we know it) caused by people falling asleep at the wheel. Number one cause of accidents on the motorway (or if it isn't, it's pretty darned near the top). And yet it's not specifically illegal "to be or to cause someone to be attending the controls of a mechanised motor conveyance whilst in a somnulistic state of mind". And these people get done for dangerous driving, as is right and proper.
There should be an ad campaign; "We don't care why you're driving badly. We're going to nick you anyway."
I tried reporting a car for dangerous driving and they didn't want to know unless I had witneses.
I think the mobile phone is a unique case and being a physical object could have a law applied to its use, unlike a w
k, picking nose etc. Perhaps you could have used DVD players and camera use whilst driving as better examples, but people seem far more desperate to text whilst driving than watch a movie (with the hacked wire trick) or take photos.llewop said:
Hitler Hadrump said:
Jefftav said:
Excuse my ignorance, Is it possible for car manufacturers or phone providers to block a signal unless a phone is on bluetooth so even if you wanted to you couldn't use your phone unless you are on handsfree. Just a thought?
I can't think of a way, because the phone doesn't know it's in a car. I suppose you could have the car's bluetooth tell the phone not to function, but you could just switch your phone's bluetooth off. Besides, that would massively inconvenience passengers using their phone legally.
As someone else says, the problem is also that passengers can legally use their phones, any in car technology to prevent drivers phoning will have to fight against that.
There are plently of comebacks to this idea, nothing is fool proof though. People are watch DVDs whilst driving by hacking the safety wire.
oilspill said:
The Police need to be there to nick them though. So more cameras perhaps?
More cameras? What for? oilspill said:
I tried reporting a car for dangerous driving and they didn't want to know unless I had witneses.
Probably because one man's dangerous driving is another man's spirited but safe hoon.oilspill said:
I think the mobile phone is a unique case and being a physical object could have a law applied to its use, unlike a wk, picking nose etc. Perhaps you could have used DVD players and camera use whilst driving as better examples, but people seem far more desperate to text whilst driving than watch a movie (with the hacked wire trick) or take photos.
Why is it a unique case? Bad driving is bad driving is bad driving, irrespective of the cause, and you could already be nicked by the same copper that will now do you for mobile use whilst driving.k, picking nose etc. Perhaps you could have used DVD players and camera use whilst driving as better examples, but people seem far more desperate to text whilst driving than watch a movie (with the hacked wire trick) or take photos.It seems to me that this government is desperate to criminalise swathes of people in order to pick out a tiny minority of offenders, who probably won't stop doing what ever it is they're doing anyway. This theme runs through current road safety thinking. Look at people demanding zero alcohol limits, and blanket speed limit reductions, because of people who egregiously exceed both (sometimes at the same time).
Laws that criminalise people who are engaging in perfectly safe activities are bad laws. Just because Little Miss Bellend in her euros
tbox insists on texting whilst traversing a roundabout shouldn't mean that I can't talk to my mum in L1 of the M1 in a straight line at 65MPH with a safe gap to the vehicle in front.CommanderJameson said:
More cameras? What for?
sorry it was you who asked for more people to be nicked for bad driving, I see 5 or 6 cases of careless driving due to texting mobile phone use per week and not a copper in sight. What do you propose?CommanderJameson said:
Probably because one man's dangerous driving is another man's spirited but safe hoon.
Did I really give you the impresson I dont know the difference?This was pulling out into oncoming traffic to have a look if it was safe to overtake, at approx 30MPH in a 30MPH zone, during a busy period.
CommanderJameson said:
Why is it a unique case? Bad driving is bad driving is bad driving, irrespective of the cause, and you could already be nicked by the same copper that will now do you for mobile use whilst driving.
There is bad driving whilst driving and there is bad driving whilst using a phone. It's different in that good drivers can drive badly (proven) whilst texting or holding a phone/having a conversation. CommanderJameson said:
Laws that criminalise people who are engaging in perfectly safe activities are bad laws. Just because Little Miss Bellend in her eurostbox insists on texting whilst traversing a roundabout shouldn't mean that I can't talk to my mum in L1 of the M1 in a straight line at 65MPH with a safe gap to the vehicle in front.
As a motoring enthusiast, I've never had the urge to talk to my Mum whilst driving TBH. And I certainly wouldn't phone her, even if knew she was in a straight line with safe distance in front.tbox insists on texting whilst traversing a roundabout shouldn't mean that I can't talk to my mum in L1 of the M1 in a straight line at 65MPH with a safe gap to the vehicle in front.Edited by oilspill on Thursday 17th December 23:00
Edited by oilspill on Thursday 17th December 23:00
oilspill said:
sorry it was you who asked for more people to be nicked for bad driving, I see 5 or 6 cases of careless driving due to texting mobile phone use per week and not a copper in sight. What do you propose?
More police.oilspill said:
Did I really give you the impresson I dont know the difference?
No; but the policeman you spoke to doesn't know that.oilspill said:
There is bad driving whilst driving and there is bad driving whilst using a phone. It's different in that good drivers can drive badly (proven) whilst texting or holding a phone/having a conversation.
I would prefer that they were nicked, then, for driving badly.oilspill said:
As a motoring enthusiast, I've never had the urge to talk to my Mum whilst driving TBH. And I certainly wouldn't phone her, even if knew she was in a straight line with safe distance in front.
As a motoring enthusiast, you can be bloody sure I was on the phone to my mum as I was driving down the M1, trying to get to the hospital before my grandfather died.For me, the solution would be to make it law for car manufacturers to install blue tooth as standard, and make it compatible with any phone. (Mercedes have upgrade bluetooth attachments you can plug in to the car system for various bluetooth mobiles so as new phones appear, upgrades can be offered). Then, there should be a free drive through service provided by dealers, for those that are techno challenged, to set up their mobiles with the car's bluethooth system. My wife has a Fiat 500 with blue tooth. Our phones have been sync'ed to the system. Its fantastic. Always connected and totally hands free everytime we get in the car. NO need to think about it or press any buttons etc... Its so simple.
LuS1fer said:
Sorry. How do they know? If the Police are not policing it, how can they possibly know the figures?
Give the police the fines with a 25% bonus to mr plod for all he catches and make the fine £25,000; then see how many coppers are out there, it won't take long to stop the selfish idiots who insist on being a danger to the public.I for one would have no sympathy for them. My mobile is in the glove box and switched off.Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff