Speed cameras could trap drivers on the phone
Discussion
You've really got to hand it to them, they are relentless about the use of scameras.......
http://tinyurl.com/2qyxet
Speed camera and CCTV evidence can be used to prosecute drivers talking on mobile phones while at the wheel, police said yesterday.
Motorists caught on camera with phones in their hands are "fair game", one Chief Constable said.
The comments come as harsher penalties for motorists who drive and phone are due to come into effect next Tuesday.
In many cases, drivers will not even know they have been punished, because police do not have to stop them to issue penalty notices.
Instead, an officer can note down the number plate of a driver they spot on their mobile, and send the fine through the post.
Motorists could be punished with three points on their licence and a £60 fine - double the current £30 penalty.
The proliferation of surveillance and police enforcement cameras across Britain means the risk of being spotted on the phone by a lens is much greater than being seen by a police officer at the roadside.
Mobile camera units have also carried out trials photographing drivers using phones at the wheel on the motorway.
Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Constables, said:
"If officers using mobile cameras see someone using a hand-held phone, whether with their own eyes or through the lens of their camera, then they are fair game.
"Automated speed cameras will remain specifically to catch speeding drivers and there is no policy currently to trawl photographic evidence from speed camera images to target mobile phone users.
"However, that is not to say that we can't change the policy."
The new fixed penalties also extend to not having proper control of a vehicle - possibly if the driver is being distracted by using an otherwise legal hands-free mobile phone kit.
The tougher penalties mean police are expected to rake in more than £5million a
year, some £2.5million more than has been collected to date.
That has raised accusations from motoring organisations that drivers are being used as "cash cows".
Last night the self-styled Captain Gatso, of the anti-speed camera group Motorists Against Detection, said: "This is yet another example of the Big Brother surveillance society where there's no escape from the cameras."
Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander said: "Worryingly, while 92 per cent of people agree with the law, 21 per cent of drivers admit to breaking it.
"That is why the Road Safety Act will introduce a tougher fixed penalty of three points on your licence as well as a £60 fine."
http://tinyurl.com/2qyxet
Speed camera and CCTV evidence can be used to prosecute drivers talking on mobile phones while at the wheel, police said yesterday.
Motorists caught on camera with phones in their hands are "fair game", one Chief Constable said.
The comments come as harsher penalties for motorists who drive and phone are due to come into effect next Tuesday.
In many cases, drivers will not even know they have been punished, because police do not have to stop them to issue penalty notices.
Instead, an officer can note down the number plate of a driver they spot on their mobile, and send the fine through the post.
Motorists could be punished with three points on their licence and a £60 fine - double the current £30 penalty.
The proliferation of surveillance and police enforcement cameras across Britain means the risk of being spotted on the phone by a lens is much greater than being seen by a police officer at the roadside.
Mobile camera units have also carried out trials photographing drivers using phones at the wheel on the motorway.
Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Constables, said:
"If officers using mobile cameras see someone using a hand-held phone, whether with their own eyes or through the lens of their camera, then they are fair game.
"Automated speed cameras will remain specifically to catch speeding drivers and there is no policy currently to trawl photographic evidence from speed camera images to target mobile phone users.
"However, that is not to say that we can't change the policy."
The new fixed penalties also extend to not having proper control of a vehicle - possibly if the driver is being distracted by using an otherwise legal hands-free mobile phone kit.
The tougher penalties mean police are expected to rake in more than £5million a
year, some £2.5million more than has been collected to date.
That has raised accusations from motoring organisations that drivers are being used as "cash cows".
Last night the self-styled Captain Gatso, of the anti-speed camera group Motorists Against Detection, said: "This is yet another example of the Big Brother surveillance society where there's no escape from the cameras."
Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander said: "Worryingly, while 92 per cent of people agree with the law, 21 per cent of drivers admit to breaking it.
"That is why the Road Safety Act will introduce a tougher fixed penalty of three points on your licence as well as a £60 fine."
Presumably, if an accused party were to challenge the photographic evidence that he/she had been holding a phone, the authorities would be required to demonstrate that a phone was being used by the accused for "interactive communication" by that individual at the moment of the photo?
There was a recent thread here on this; IIRC, it is not illegal simply to hold a phone in one's hand whilst driving.
There was a recent thread here on this; IIRC, it is not illegal simply to hold a phone in one's hand whilst driving.
Very slightly splitting hairs though
I mean you don't normally fondle your
electric razor/dictaphone/IPOD/sandwiches while steering the car
without the slightest hint of using/eating them
No ones suggesting driving,
is conducted within a veil of silence or activity
which might break your concentration momentarily,
but trying to plead you way out of being in the wrong
is not really gonna' cut it
somehow
I mean you don't normally fondle your
electric razor/dictaphone/IPOD/sandwiches while steering the car
without the slightest hint of using/eating them
No ones suggesting driving,
is conducted within a veil of silence or activity
which might break your concentration momentarily,
but trying to plead you way out of being in the wrong
is not really gonna' cut it
somehow
From thew DOT Website
Driving with the phone balanced between shoulder and ear doesn't count as hands-free.
[No RLY ?]
or
The law requires that drivers be in control of their vehicle at all times. This means that the police can still act if they see a driver distracted by things like eating a sandwich, shaving, or drinking from a bottle while driving
[We pay you lot ?]
or
If you drive badly and a police officer suspects you have been using your phone he can stop you and seek a reason for the poor driving.
[you could just be a sh1t driver]
If it goes to court, your phone records can be checked to determine whether you were using your phone.
[even handsfree]
Driving with the phone balanced between shoulder and ear doesn't count as hands-free.
[No RLY ?]
or
The law requires that drivers be in control of their vehicle at all times. This means that the police can still act if they see a driver distracted by things like eating a sandwich, shaving, or drinking from a bottle while driving
[We pay you lot ?]
or
If you drive badly and a police officer suspects you have been using your phone he can stop you and seek a reason for the poor driving.
[you could just be a sh1t driver]
If it goes to court, your phone records can be checked to determine whether you were using your phone.
[even handsfree]
stuttgartmetal said:
From thew DOT Website
Driving with the phone balanced between shoulder and ear doesn't count as hands-free.
[No RLY ?]
or
The law requires that drivers be in control of their vehicle at all times. This means that the police can still act if they see a driver distracted by things like eating a sandwich, shaving, or drinking from a bottle while driving
[We pay you lot ?]
or
If you drive badly and a police officer suspects you have been using your phone he can stop you and seek a reason for the poor driving.
[you could just be a sh1t driver]
If it goes to court, your phone records can be checked to determine whether you were using your phone.
[even handsfree]
Driving with the phone balanced between shoulder and ear doesn't count as hands-free.
[No RLY ?]
or
The law requires that drivers be in control of their vehicle at all times. This means that the police can still act if they see a driver distracted by things like eating a sandwich, shaving, or drinking from a bottle while driving
[We pay you lot ?]
or
If you drive badly and a police officer suspects you have been using your phone he can stop you and seek a reason for the poor driving.
[you could just be a sh1t driver]
If it goes to court, your phone records can be checked to determine whether you were using your phone.
[even handsfree]
To see whether someone was using your phone.
rich 36 said:
Very slightly splitting hairs though
I mean you don't normally fondle your
electric razor/dictaphone/IPOD/sandwiches while steering the car
without the slightest hint of using/eating them
No ones suggesting driving,
is conducted within a veil of silence or activity
which might break your concentration momentarily,
but trying to plead you way out of being in the wrong
is not really gonna' cut it
somehow
I mean you don't normally fondle your
electric razor/dictaphone/IPOD/sandwiches while steering the car
without the slightest hint of using/eating them
No ones suggesting driving,
is conducted within a veil of silence or activity
which might break your concentration momentarily,
but trying to plead you way out of being in the wrong
is not really gonna' cut it
somehow
Beyond a reasonable doubt?
"My ear was itching, so I scratched it."
"I was adjusting the position of my handsfree."
"I was adjusting earpiece of my iPod."
There will be some people who challenge an allegation against them and win.
The problem with this legislation is no different from the problem with speed limits. If you use a phone - handheld or not - whilst you are driving there is a greater likelihood that you will be in an accident. Similarly, if you drive after dark there is a greater likelihood that you will be in an accident.
However, even with that greater likelihood, the average driver will go over the speed limit, or talk on the phone, or drive at night millions or even billions of times without incident.
In an imperfect, risk-filled world, at what point do we ban benign acts by responsible people that increase danger, but only to a miniscule extent?
As our friend vonhosen has said, speed limits are used as a proxy for "too risky" driving simply because they are easy to enforce. Genuine looking for and penalising careless or dangerous driving is considered to be too much of a hassle to do. Therefore very good driving gets lumped together with crap driving, and we are the worse for it.
flemke said:
[ ... ]
In an imperfect, risk-filled world, at what point do we ban benign acts by responsible people that increase danger, but only to a miniscule extent?
Even when the risk is minimal and likely only to be incurred by idiots. Recent example (O/T) is the removal of goal-posts from a public playing field, "In case someone bumps into them whilst walking along with their head down reading a map in the dark"! I kid you not! - Streaky In an imperfect, risk-filled world, at what point do we ban benign acts by responsible people that increase danger, but only to a miniscule extent?
Clearly your offering a different perspective,
very good, but I think TBH your on pretty shaky ground
if caught
with phone to ear,
alone,
logs showing call in progress,
and in much the same way I don't inspect
wine labels, on the way home from Sainsburys
for hints on vintage, or possibly check screwtop for tightness,
preffering instead to savour this particular info
in the comfort of my own home,
as the act might possibly be misconstrued by an observer
very good, but I think TBH your on pretty shaky ground
if caught
with phone to ear,
alone,
logs showing call in progress,
and in much the same way I don't inspect
wine labels, on the way home from Sainsburys
for hints on vintage, or possibly check screwtop for tightness,
preffering instead to savour this particular info
in the comfort of my own home,
as the act might possibly be misconstrued by an observer
streaky said:
flemke said:
[ ... ]
In an imperfect, risk-filled world, at what point do we ban benign acts by responsible people that increase danger, but only to a miniscule extent?
Even when the risk is minimal and likely only to be incurred by idiots. Recent example (O/T) is the removal of goal-posts from a public playing field, "In case someone bumps into them whilst walking along with their head down reading a map in the dark"! I kid you not! - Streaky In an imperfect, risk-filled world, at what point do we ban benign acts by responsible people that increase danger, but only to a miniscule extent?
There's a real risk that someone would be stupid enough to do that, you know, although only a councillor or Health and Safety officer.
I don't condone using a phone whilst driving in any way, but I do think that the OP puts the lie to Blair's claim that the proposed GPS road pricing scheme won't be used to track cars and to enforce speed limits. If a technology can be used for a given purpose, then ultimately, it will be used for that purpose.
Major Bloodnok said:
I don't condone using a phone whilst driving in any way, but I do think that the OP puts the lie to Blair's claim that the proposed GPS road pricing scheme won't be used to track cars and to enforce speed limits. If a technology can be used for a given purpose, then ultimately, it will be used for that purpose.
Of course.
Are the Blair Government in a position to guarantee anything for the infinite future?
Protest over Dartford toll charge
There is a flat rate of £1 for car drivers who use the crossing
A protest is being held at the Dartford Crossing on Friday by campaigners who claim the tolls should be scrapped.
The UK Independence Party (UKIP) says charges breach European laws because the cost for trucks is too high.
UKIP MEP Nigel Farage said the government promised to scrap the charges once the crossing was paid for, which happened in 2003.
But Transport Minister Steve Ladyman insisted the tolls control the flow of traffic so must stay to ensure safety.
"One of the purposes of tolling is that cars are effectively metered as they cross the bridge so it does not exceed its design capacity - it's a safety thing and that's perfectly legal," he said.
The ultimate kitchen sink excuse - "It's a safety thing."
Translation: "We'll do anything we bloody well want - it's always a safety thing!"
Dishonest scum.
flemke said:
Major Bloodnok said:
I don't condone using a phone whilst driving in any way, but I do think that the OP puts the lie to Blair's claim that the proposed GPS road pricing scheme won't be used to track cars and to enforce speed limits. If a technology can be used for a given purpose, then ultimately, it will be used for that purpose.
Of course.
Are the Blair Government in a position to guarantee anything for the infinite future?
Protest over Dartford toll charge
There is a flat rate of £1 for car drivers who use the crossing
A protest is being held at the Dartford Crossing on Friday by campaigners who claim the tolls should be scrapped.
The UK Independence Party (UKIP) says charges breach European laws because the cost for trucks is too high.
UKIP MEP Nigel Farage said the government promised to scrap the charges once the crossing was paid for, which happened in 2003.
But Transport Minister Steve Ladyman insisted the tolls control the flow of traffic so must stay to ensure safety.
"One of the purposes of tolling is that cars are effectively metered as they cross the bridge so it does not exceed its design capacity - it's a safety thing and that's perfectly legal," he said.
The ultimate kitchen sink excuse - "It's a safety thing."
Translation: "We'll do anything we bloody well want - it's always a safety thing!"
Dishonest scum.
I am sure I read there are plans to increase this toll to £1.50.
I think it was in a tabloid last November.. So .. if this was just "until paid for" .. then there ist not one valid reason to increase the toll .. :
flemke said:
Major Bloodnok said:
I don't condone using a phone whilst driving in any way, but I do think that the OP puts the lie to Blair's claim that the proposed GPS road pricing scheme won't be used to track cars and to enforce speed limits. If a technology can be used for a given purpose, then ultimately, it will be used for that purpose.
Of course.
Are the Blair Government in a position to guarantee anything for the infinite future?
Protest over Dartford toll charge
There is a flat rate of £1 for car drivers who use the crossing
A protest is being held at the Dartford Crossing on Friday by campaigners who claim the tolls should be scrapped.
The UK Independence Party (UKIP) says charges breach European laws because the cost for trucks is too high.
UKIP MEP Nigel Farage said the government promised to scrap the charges once the crossing was paid for, which happened in 2003.
But Transport Minister Steve Ladyman insisted the tolls control the flow of traffic so must stay to ensure safety.
"One of the purposes of tolling is that cars are effectively metered as they cross the bridge so it does not exceed its design capacity - it's a safety thing and that's perfectly legal," he said.
The ultimate kitchen sink excuse - "It's a safety thing."
Translation: "We'll do anything we bloody well want - it's always a safety thing!"
Dishonest scum.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
The tolls are located after the bridge, therefore there is no metering of the number of vehicles that will be on the bridge, which is just a continuation of the M25.
But back to the subject of the Handy phone. I do not understand why people need to be slave to these things. Ist a telephone. There ist more to life than chatting on a phone. There ist..
the sheer pleasure of the drive .. caressing the steering wheel, fondling the gear stick.. listening to the engine revs ..
A phone gets in the
way
But.. long distance photo does not prove much. One could be indeed scratching an ear. I have seen police officers at traffic light propping up head with hand. At first glance ... right next to them at lights on red setting I thought Handy was glued to ear.. but they were just "resting" head in hand whilst waiting for light to change.
Thus .. a scamera used in this way would not necessarily give the correct image .. und can easily be defended in court by way of logged calls to these phones at time.. one hopes ...
But .. my Handy ist not even in sight. Bottom of handbag .. which ist hidden from view ... under passenger seat.
.
I rarely use it anyway. There "in event of absolute necessity really".
the sheer pleasure of the drive .. caressing the steering wheel, fondling the gear stick.. listening to the engine revs ..
A phone gets in the
way But.. long distance photo does not prove much. One could be indeed scratching an ear. I have seen police officers at traffic light propping up head with hand. At first glance ... right next to them at lights on red setting I thought Handy was glued to ear.. but they were just "resting" head in hand whilst waiting for light to change.
Thus .. a scamera used in this way would not necessarily give the correct image .. und can easily be defended in court by way of logged calls to these phones at time.. one hopes ...
But .. my Handy ist not even in sight. Bottom of handbag .. which ist hidden from view ... under passenger seat.
. I rarely use it anyway. There "in event of absolute necessity really".
WildCat said:
But back to the subject of the Handy phone. I do not understand why people need to be slave to these things. Ist a telephone. There ist more to life than chatting on a phone.
Sure.
However,
Many people I know are entirely able to drive at 65 mph on an empty motorway whilst dealing with a one-minute phone call - like the police officer, lorry driver or taxi operator who can still drive lawfully whilst speaking on a private radio system.
Very different from the dipwads whom one sees with a phone in one hand weaving their way through traffic, amongst pedestrians, or trying to circumnavigate a roundabout by palming the wheel.
The law doesn't differentiate.
flemke said:
WildCat said:
But back to the subject of the Handy phone. I do not understand why people need to be slave to these things. Ist a telephone. There ist more to life than chatting on a phone.
Sure.
However,
Many people I know are entirely able to drive at 65 mph on an empty motorway whilst dealing with a one-minute phone call - like the police officer, lorry driver or taxi operator who can still drive lawfully whilst speaking on a private radio system.
Very different from the dipwads whom one sees with a phone in one hand weaving their way through traffic, amongst pedestrians, or trying to circumnavigate a roundabout by palming the wheel.
The law doesn't differentiate.
Ach.. but we have handy free for those instances
I cannot really abide these things though. Why do they all have such naff ring tones? I set mine to an old fashioned R--Ring... RRRR..I-II-IING! Und usually ignore it
.... saving all my chatter up for later.. .. catso said:
In many cases, drivers will not even know they have been punished, because police do not have to stop them to issue penalty notices.
Instead, an officer can note down the number plate of a driver they spot on their mobile, and send the fine through the post.
"If officers using mobile cameras see someone using a hand-held phone, whether with their own eyes or through the lens of their camera, then they are fair game.
Instead, an officer can note down the number plate of a driver they spot on their mobile, and send the fine through the post.
"If officers using mobile cameras see someone using a hand-held phone, whether with their own eyes or through the lens of their camera, then they are fair game.
So from this I read that an officer can see you, take your plate, and so fine you. If you tried to defend yourself, his evidence would be what? Your phone records (which Bibs would have to get) may well prove you were on the phone, but where's the proof that you were driving at the time?
mandat said:
This makes no sense whatsoever.
The tolls are located after the bridge, therefore there is no metering of the number of vehicles that will be on the bridge, which is just a continuation of the M25.
It's actually worse because due entirely to the tolls the bridge is often full of stationary (or near stationary) traffic, which if there were no toll would be in much sparser numbers on the bridge, 'Ladyboy' is a Labour minister ergo he is a lying slimeball - but hey don't let the facts or safety get in the way of revenue generation........
Edited by catso on Sunday 25th February 00:04
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff