muckles:
How many collisions are there that don’t involve phone use, where the cause is they didn’t see in time to react?
Most are caused by a driver not concentrating on the task of driving but allowing themselves to be distracted
Exactly but they single out phones as a special case, but there are plenty of others things that distract drivers that aren’t singles out. When the law on mobile phones was first talked about a traffic copper friend of mine said it was pointless as they already had laws that could deal with people who used phones and making it a special case detracted from the other causes that distracted people.
muckles:
How many collisions are there that don’t involve phone use, where the cause is they didn’t see in time to react?
Most are caused by a driver not concentrating on the task of driving but allowing themselves to be distracted
Exactly but they single out phones as a special case, but there are plenty of others things that distract drivers that aren’t singles out. When the law on mobile phones was first talked about a traffic copper friend of mine said it was pointless as they already had laws that could deal with people who used phones and making it a special case detracted from the other causes that distracted people.
Phone use used to be dealt with by the offence of the Driver not being in proper control of the vehicle.
As Magistrates no longer accept the word of a Police officer ( I am not getting into whether this is right or wrong) then the collection of evidence to prosecute a Driver for Molbile phone use - by even Fixed Penalty Notice - becomes more convoluted and therefore much less attractive to the officers on the ground.
It’s rapidly coming down to video / photographic evidence or forget it - hence the use of the Police HGV Truck.
As many other contributors have said, if you see a Traffic Cop on the Motorway it’s probably a mirage - his control room will probably accuse him of skivving or being lost!
As an aside - most North West area Traffic Cops will be aware of the Pro-forma sheet that they are requested to submit the Office of the TC should they prosecute a Coomercial Vehicle Driver on a mobile phone. The offender will then, in all likelihood, be asked to make a personal appearance with the possibility of a Vocational Disqualification of 28 days being a frequent result.
For a mobile phone offence in an unknown vehicle (not HGV), if the licence holder has a vocational category they will (or should) receive a warning letter via DVLA advising them their actions are considered below those expected. The letter is on behalf of the TC.
Once the letter had been issued further offences are passed to the TC by DVLA and a disciplinary conduct hearing will be likely.
In a 3 month period 1051 drivers received such a letter. In the same period over 200 of those re-offended and were in front of a TC - or so the government public consultation claimed.
If caught in a HGV - this is reported directly to the TC by DVLA and a conduct hearing will follow.
The Senior TC’s statutory document No 6 details the suspension period the driver will receive. If it is apparent the call made in the HGV was work related, there’s a high probability the TM/Operator will be in front of a TC as well
Talking on a mobile phone does not increase the number of accidents. Its been debunked the same as exceeding the speed limit means you’ll have a crash.
I prefer to trust the science rather than emotive claptrap which seems to be what has steered the whole thing around mobile phones and speeding.
If using a mobile communications device was really that bad then there would not be an exemption for 2 way radio and the police would not be being filmed countless times on TV shows when single crewed using their radio/phone during a high speed pursuit.
The-Snowman:
Thing is, you can demand a bigger police presence to deal with people on phones but as soon as the cops do it, you get the usual whingers who focus on the revenue earned rather than the fact all those people got caught using their phones while driving.
Look at speeding blitzes. Its the usual story. They could catch 200 people speeding through a road in one day and rather than say “wow, glad they got dealt with. Maybe they’ll slow down in future” you get the usual focusing on how much money is raised in fines. The cops are damned if they do and damned if they dont.
My solution would be an abolishing of the fine system and instead its an outright ban. Six months to begin with. Then a year for next offence. Then 18 months for the next one and if caught again they just remove the license and that person never gets to drive again. For this system to work howevr, they’d need to only apply it to vehicles that are actually moving. None of this “still in control” pish even though your in neutral with the hand brake on.
The fact that they catch so many people speeding proves that the traps aren’t working as a deterrent.
Don’t get me wrong, a speeding fine (and any other fine for that matter) is a voluntary tax, but if speeding or using the mobile is so dangerous,why isn’t the onus on prevention rather than catching?
Conor:
Talking on a mobile phone does not increase the number of accidents. Its been debunked the same as exceeding the speed limit means you’ll have a crash.
I prefer to trust the science rather than emotive claptrap which seems to be what has steered the whole thing around mobile phones and speeding.
If using a mobile communications device was really that bad then there would not be an exemption for 2 way radio and the police would not be being filmed countless times on TV shows when single crewed using their radio/phone during a high speed pursuit.
Both show a year on year decline in the number of injuries and deaths, despite this “endemic” culture of phone use whilst driving and and increase in traffic on our excessively congested roads.
IMO it is simply down to people’s inability to drive.
I’m sure some people would argue that as most deaths on the road do not involve use of a mobile phone, then it is safer to use one! However, as has been stated and surely all of us have observed, they are distracting from the process of driving and can and do lead to people being killed. As for increased penalties being a deterrent, who knows? At least those caught might think twice in future. It’s the blatant “F YOU!” attitude and getting away with it that annoys me. I would be more discreet if I did it.
Captain Caveman 76:
The fact that they catch so many people speeding proves that the traps aren’t working as a deterrent.
Don’t get me wrong, a speeding fine (and any other fine for that matter) is a voluntary tax, but if speeding or using the mobile is so dangerous,why isn’t the onus on prevention rather than catching?
But how do you place an onus on prevention? What can they do to prevent rather than catch?
Ad campaigns of deaths caused by speeding dont work, threats of fines and points dont work. There are too many people whos ambition vastly outweighs their talent and who will speed regardless as they feel “its ok, im a good driver”.
The only thing I can think of is that for anything over X% of the limit, its an out right ban. Get caught again and its a longer ban and get caught a third time and its bye bye licence for ever. No loopholes for “financial hardship” no dispenssation for it being a “family emergency”, nothing. Maybe that threat of that will make people think they should ease up on the right foot.
Anybody see cars wars on Tuesday night and noticed the dog handler
on the phone .It was not Bluetooth or hands free but hand held.Whats the chances of her getting nicked none.
fingermissing:
Anybody see cars wars on Tuesday night and noticed the dog handler
on the phone .It was not Bluetooth or hands free but hand held.Whats the chances of her getting nicked none.
That is legal and safe as they have been trained to do it
I also believe the emergency services break the speed limits quite safe and legally …
fingermissing:
Anybody see cars wars on Tuesday night and noticed the dog handler
on the phone .It was not Bluetooth or hands free but hand held.Whats the chances of her getting nicked none.
Not seen it, but given the debate on other forums, some suggest it was a private road, maybe not.
She was been given “words of advice” and paid £100 to Brake, the road safety charity. This will only be due to the fact when it happened is over the 6 month limit to be prosecuted.
fingermissing:
Anybody see cars wars on Tuesday night and noticed the dog handler
on the phone .It was not Bluetooth or hands free but hand held.Whats the chances of her getting nicked none.
Not seen it, but given the debate on other forums, some suggest it was a private road, maybe not.
She was been given “words of advice” and paid £100 to Brake, the road safety charity. This will only be due to the fact when it happened is over the 6 month limit to be prosecuted.
Sent from my PLK-L01 using Tapatalk
That ok then,can we all give a bit of money to charity instead of getting prosecuted,one law for us…