Mobile phone use.

[davidjpowell]

I wish I knew why people are more concerned with the legality of something than they are with possibility that doing so may lead to serious injury or death.

I'm not a white van man, but I am self-employed. I spend a lot of time in the car, and need to communicate. I've changed cars to get one where I can hold a conversation legally and hear to communicate.

If I miss a call it often does cost money. It's not perfect, and I'd prefer to be able to chill, but it is legal.

I do have some basic rules in my head about when I answer the phone and how involved in a conversation I will get. There are times when it's simply not appropriate and the call has to go to voicemail.

The law needs to catch up with the technology. Car manufacturers new models are bloody integrating with facebook. Now that's insane.

It's the speed kills argument all over again. Using technology safely is not dangerous. Using it dangerously is dangerous.

Look at the lorry driver who started off this crackdown. He was choosing music. Did you see where the head unit was his phone was plugged into - above his bloody head. Did you know that all the HGV manufacturers have different versions of Collision Detection that would have completely avoided that accident had it been fitted?

Let's say that my idea was in practice. His phone was plugged in to his glovebox - out of reach. He's got a simple screen with some sort of control wheel. The screen is high up on the windscreen (or even in a heads up), or he can select by voice. Play Oasis. Suddenly his eyes are still on the road, not focused on a small screen that he has to hold.

Let's stop a minute and think about the typical trucker and where they are going to keep their music. Do they always drive the same lorry? Unlikely? Carry a box of CD's? Unlikely. Carry a phone full of music? Quite likely. Are we going to pretend modern technology does not exist, or put systems in place that use that technology safely?

 

[markjay]

I think you need a better source. It is not illegal to touch the phone. It is illegal to hold the phone. If it's on a cradle, then it is legal to push answer etc.

If they see you touch the screen, you will get pulled over for driving without due care and attention.

I agree that the Daily Mail is not the most reliable of sources, but this was explained to a friend of mine who got pulled over... as said this is a de-facto situation.

It stems from the fact that with smartphones it is very difficult for police to know what the driver was doing exactly - e.g. just taking a call or actually browsing the news etc. So they simply apply 'due care and attention' regardless.

Police would say that you can only take the call if you have a button on the car (steering wheel etc) or use voice commands.

Said that, driving without due care and attention is potentially more difficult to prove (and easier to defend against) than if charged with using a mobile phone without a cradle.

 

[brucemillar]

I think that the Police need only prove that you were driving "without due care and attention" that would be independent of any device type that caused you to be charged? There have been many high profile cases - applying makeup - eating a sandwich - using a phone - and, I may be wrong here - intent to use a phone or something like this. The driver argued that there was no call and records showed no call, but the Police proved that the phone was being held whilst driving and the intent was to use it?

I do wish I could recall the program I watched? It focused on the way that manufacturers are homing in on built in technology without any real thought given to it's misuse. Most alarming was the assumption from the public that it's presence in a new car, meant it was safe to use "they would not put it there were it not" Some manufacturers wanted to market the safety of their in car tech as a selling point. But it was clearly shown that once distracted by it, the distraction grew, as the confidence to fiddle increased.

I am not alone today with having several cars of different makes. Changing from one car to another will often see me attempt to indicate by flashing my wipers or sounding my headlights. Comedic at times but still potentially dangerous at times.

I too would like to see some level of industry standard with in car tech, using solid scientific, real life usage, applied in it's development. Will it stop the determined breaking the law? I think not. It has not stopped our roads being full of drink drivers who take the chance based on "not being caught" over them killing somebody.

 

[Alex225]

Considering there is a proper punishment for using a mobile while driving it still stuns how many people disregard that.

I suspect upping the fine would deter people but probably only after they've been caught once. Sadly because everyone out there thinks they're great drivers so they can 'get away with it!'

Also I don't understand the need to hold your phone at any time. I have mine on a vent bracket. You can even tell the likes of Siri to dial a number on speaker so you press one button, no different to changing a CD or radio station. No need to hold your phone in the car!!

 

[GLK]

Once that tech is right people won't want to hold the thing.

If only there was a technological cure for idiocy.

There's nothing lacking in existing tech to stop people holding their phones.
And yet they still do.

 

[KennyN]

There's nothing lacking in existing tech to stop people holding their phones.

Samsungs latest "feature" does a good job of preventing the owner from holding the device.

Kenny

 

[davidjpowell]

I think that the Police need only prove that you were driving "without due care and attention" that would be independent of any device type that caused you to be charged? There have been many high profile cases - applying makeup - eating a sandwich - using a phone - and, I may be wrong here - intent to use a phone or something like this. The driver argued that there was no call and records showed no call, but the Police proved that the phone was being held whilst driving and the intent was to use it?

I do wish I could recall the program I watched? It focused on the way that manufacturers are homing in on built in technology without any real thought given to it's misuse. Most alarming was the assumption from the public that it's presence in a new car, meant it was safe to use "they would not put it there were it not" Some manufacturers wanted to market the safety of their in car tech as a selling point. But it was clearly shown that once distracted by it, the distraction grew, as the confidence to fiddle increased.

I am not alone today with having several cars of different makes. Changing from one car to another will often see me attempt to indicate by flashing my wipers or sounding my headlights. Comedic at times but still potentially dangerous at times.

I too would like to see some level of industry standard with in car tech, using solid scientific, real life usage, applied in it's development. Will it stop the determined breaking the law? I think not. It has not stopped our roads being full of drink drivers who take the chance based on "not being caught" over them killing somebody.

Due care and consideration is different, and as you say independent of a device. You can't be done for 'intent' to use a phone - unless whatever you are doing has distracted you to the extent that it affects your driving

I think the newer higher penalty points only apply to the office of using a handheld device (in your hand)..

 

[tanuie]

points , yes. Fine needs to be bigger and the phone should be confiscated and crushed. If a second offence, a ban

+1

 

[nick mercedes]

I wish I knew why people are more concerned with the legality of something than they are with possibility that doing so may lead to serious injury or death.

All sorts of things lead to serious injury or death, eating too much, vodka, skiing etc

Should all supposed dangerous things be banned on the off chance it might lead to disaster?

How many people are actually killed due to this?

How many are killed just crossing the road?

 

[moonloops]

Make one stipulation of getting a driving licences be the removal of ones ears and eyes - simples.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

I just heard some jibber-jabber on the radio about police recruitment of civilians to be deployed with an aim of snitching on drivers using their phone.

Form an orderly queue gents...

 

[AMGeed]

All sorts of things lead to serious injury or death, eating too much, vodka, skiing etc

Should all supposed dangerous things be banned on the off chance it might lead to disaster?

How many people are actually killed due to this?

How many are killed just crossing the road?

So you are happy to let drivers continue to use their phones to text and make calls? Unbelievable thinking I have to say

How many people are actually killed due to this?

Isn't just one person one too many when a law that is in force can prevent it?
Go and explain your theory to the guy who watched his wife , son and daughter get crushed by the reckless b@stard on his phone at the time a few months ago. He'd probably want to tear your head off. Idiot!

 

[davidjpowell]

So you are happy to let drivers continue to use their phones to text and make calls? Unbelievable thinking I have to say



Isn't just one person one too many when a law that is in force can prevent it?
Go and explain your theory to the guy who watched his wife , son and daughter get crushed by the reckless b@stard on his phone at the time a few months ago. He'd probably want to tear your head off. Idiot!

Nick may have expressed it brutally, but step back and think about it.

We could save lives by banning cars, but it is not a sacrifice the public is prepared to take to save those lives.

The balance may be different - but the point is there.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Some members of this forum really hate it when someone tries to open up a discussion wider than the black and white, right and wrong restrictions.

In my corporate life I used to relish meetings with such types because they will have rarely had an original thought in their lives let alone walked through consequences and mapped out different paths that something new could take them down.

Of course, rather than try and clear their minds they would rather rely on an emotional outburst with/without insults.

 

[brucemillar]

Some members of this forum really hate it when someone tries to open up a discussion wider than the black and white, right and wrong restrictions.

In my corporate life I used to relish meetings with such types because they will have rarely had an original thought in their lives let alone walked through consequences and mapped out different paths that something new could take them down.

Of course, rather than try and clear their minds they would rather rely on an emotional outburst with/without insults.

There are those those who complain to the mods and ask to have others banned, when they post things they don't like. It takes all sorts Lewy to make a forum. Before you know it, people are on a car forum protesting about having their bin bags pinched. It's a funny old life really isn't it. When only professionals and Lewyboy are allowed opinions. Anybody else is reported to the mods. Lets see how long it takes you to get this thread closed then Loohay.

 

[davidjpowell]

^Is there any need for that?

 

[nick mercedes]

So you are happy to let drivers continue to use their phones to text and make calls?

Texting is a bit ambitious, but using the phone seems harmless enough, what I'm trying to point out is yes some people do get killed by people using mobiles, but is it really that many compared with all the others killed on the roads?

And given everyone on here seems to see endless people on the phone while driving - as I do, everyday, how come there aren't a trail of crashed cars and bodies in their wake?

 

[nick mercedes]

Mobile phones biggest cause of road fatalities | UK | News | Daily Express

"Mobile phones are biggest cause of road fatalities"

Scary eh?

But chop through the propaganda and:

"The Department for Transport said that of 88 deaths caused by distractions in 2012, 17 were due to mobile use"

(total fatalities 2012 - 1754)

So "biggest cause of road fatalities" turns out to 17 out of 1754...

Other things to consider:

"there were 23 deaths in police custody"

"17 deaths due to dog attacks 5221 injuries requiring hospital admission"

"3,600 people died in falls, including 50 who slipped on ice or snow and two were on “ice-skates, skis, roller-skates or skateboards”"

"99 people were killed in falls from beds"

"52 in falls from chairs"

"655 who fell down stairs"

"13 falling off a cliff"

"35 drowned in the bath"

So while you're busy stamping on people's killer mobiles, don't forget the far more dangerous killer chairs, baths, cliffs, skates and dogs.

Keep away from policemen too, far more likely to kill you than someone on a mobile at the wheel.

 

[AMGeed]

Some members of this forum really hate it when someone tries to open up a discussion wider than the black and white, right and wrong restrictions.

In my corporate life I used to relish meetings with such types because they will have rarely had an original thought in their lives let alone walked through consequences and mapped out different paths that something new could take them down.

Of course, rather than try and clear their minds they would rather rely on an emotional outburst with/without insults.

Its funny because I see the statement Nick made in black and white very clearly. In my eyes its just so wrong on every level. That's why I spoke my mind. I apologise for the idiot remark.
I'll keep your opinion about my "original thoughts" to myself.

 

[AMGeed]

Texting is a bit ambitious, but using the phone seems harmless enough, what I'm trying to point out is yes some people do get killed by people using mobiles, but is it really that many compared with all the others killed on the roads?

But people are texting! Why does anyone need to be killed to prove your point?

In your world, its appears its OK for prove using a mobile is a danger to other road users?

I just don't understand your flippant outlook to preventable loss of life