Mobile Phones Hoo Ha!

[Evil_Dr_Fish]

Can I be the one (as ever) to voice unpopular thought and throw a little perspective onto this for one minute...

Now, while I have every sympathy for the families (etc etc - all the usual disclaimers)

I would like to put the whole "Mobile phones are causing Death, Destruction and Mayhem" issue into a more 'realistic' frame...

The number of people killed while drivers were using mibile phones last year?

13!

Yes, THIRTEEN!

Out of a UK population of 56Million+ ...That's offically EFF ALL.

I got the report in the office this morning, Britain is the 3rd safest country in Europe (behind only - you guessed it - Sweden and Holland!) and is one of the safest in the entrie world.

S0DDING anti-car-hippie NONSENSE!

Green Hippie agenda to create an atmosphere conducive to punishing car users.

[Jonathan]

Thats just deaths.....wonder how many accidents / injuries there were ?

I hate phone callers "sorry, can't drive at the minute...I'm on the phone !" - they should have upped it to a 12 points / ban and a

[islandbloke]

I interviewed a local traffic cop about this yesterday - it's been law here since 2000 but doesn't seem to be enforced very often with prosecutions.

He said it's the 'having a conversation' that's the killer, so hands-free still isn't the solution. I suggested that if it's so dangerous, how come the cops can talk on their radios while doing high speed chases - but (surprise) he said 'that's different'.

Actually, I think he's right - there's a difference between a quick exchange of information and negotiating a divorce agreement...

[Splashout]

At the end of the day with less cops actually on the road how likely are you to be caught anyway!!

I could count the cops I drive past in a week on one hand, therefore I dont think it will change a thing.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Splashout

[Advantage]

Yep, the stats are 13 deaths last year and around 400 accidents directly attributed to mobile phone users. Approx 3500 deaths in total last year on our roads.

This new draconian attitude to punishing does seem completely out of proportion to the amount of risk it poses.

[mayevora]

There are alot of things that people don't like being critisized for, and driving is one of them. Everybody thinks they are good at it, and actually don't like their mistakes being pointed out to them.

Ask a 17 year old who has just passed - Yes, I'm a good safe driver. Ask a 70 year old who passed 40 years ago - Yes, I'm a good safe driver. Nobody will admit to being a bad driver. What somebody considers to be a minor mistake, or infact not even a mistake, would constitute a major mistake to somebody else. The common answer is 'well it didn't cause an accident, so it must have been OK'.

Mobile phone use while driving, for a very large percentage of the population of this country would probably cause no harm to anybody. The tiny percentage of accidents that have happened are because those drivers concentration has lappsed for a split second. You can't have one rule for one and other rules for others, so a ban is the obvious solution.

How far can you take this though. Will they soon ban you for taking eyes off the road to change the CD?. Will you be alloud to make conversation with you passengers? Should they ban smoking whilst driving?

I don't know how many of those accidents wouldn't have happened, if they wern't on the phone - we shall never know.

Totally agree with Jon - If its important, they will phone back or leave message. Would you believe it, I actually lasted the first 20 years of my life without one!

[Evil_Dr_Fish]

The short answer to you Ian is... YES!

It has ALREADY been mooted that turning your head to look at / talk to your passenger could / should become an offense... Along with Changing / Tuning the radio... I imagine smoking will go too.

I would like to clearly point out that I don't defend full-on mobile phone users - I hate being called while driving and will only talk while on hands-free.

However, even that ALREADY is a crime! Did you know that?

Someone was at great pains to point this out on the news yesterday... (more than once!) If you are not in full control of your car while talking on a hands free, you can be nabbed for that - How that's different from not being in full control of your car - 'EVER' is beyond me... What it does prove though, is that the Hippie / Cotton Wool brigade will be pushing for a ban on hands free usage and indeed already are.

Ridiculous.

As ever, they wheel out the Mother of some tragic kid who got flattened who is now on a one woman crusade to rid the world of... well... EVERYTHING... and skew the argument such that if you defend the situation (at all) then you are spitting on that woman's kids' grave.

The argument is that talking to a passenger is different as they are aware of the road situation and respond accordingly LMFAO Like bloody hell they do! - The number of times I've had to ask my passenger(s) to hold it a sec because I was doing something that needed full concentration.....

HAS ANYONE ELSE NOTICED...... That the "Kill your speed, Not a child" campaign has recently re-worded its ads / slogans?

Because it wasn't true!

The 20mph doesn't keep kids alive - they still have a very high mortality rate at 20, so has been changed to "Person!" as adults are bigger and stronger.

All those 'child friendly' 20mph zones don't prevent them from being killed when splattered.

It can increase your chance of stopping or having a bit more time to react etc (if the random kiddies run into the road far enough in front of you) but as ever if they run out right in front of us, within our reaction zone, WE are left carrying the can for everyone else's lemming instincts.

[mayevora]

If its going to become a crime to tune the radio or enter a CD, surely it would then become dangerous to listen to it as well, as not 100% concentration on doing the job of actually driving?

Don't get me wrong, I am probably more in favour of some of these changes than others - but just how far do you take it. Getting a bit daft now.

Checking speedo, checking mirrors, listening/looking at sat nav. All of which are taking eyes off road. I know its a quick glance and then eyes back on road but common sence has to prevail at some point - PLEASE!!

Edited February 28, 2007 by mayesprit

[Killboy]

common sence has to prevail at some point - PLEASE!!

Common sense & UK laws?? Don't be silly.

[Esprit Aviation]

It sure is refreshing that we all have such differing views, yet we can agree to disagree, and we're all still friends @ the end! That's what makes this forum special.

I can see both points of view. What works for one person, concentration-wise, may not work for another who is easily distracted. Unfortunately there is no way to know this.

I suppose the 'few' who may be able to continuously cope w/ such an array of input, would be a race car driver. Having to communicate, drive the car in insanely fast traffic and be aware of the slightest glitch in the car itself. Wayne, I see you may be onboard. I know that you race, do you think that it helps your level of concentration while multi-tasking on the road?

Glyn, you're a lucky guy, seeing that few cops. You can't swing a dead cat w/o hittin' a cop in a cruiser around here! My apologies in advance to the cat lovers! It's only an expression!! We have two cats ourselves.

Cheers, Lee

[Evil_Dr_Fish]

....You can't swing a dead cat.....

That's not a problem - in the UK version of that expression, we don't even wait for the cat to expire!

I think most of use are in agreement over the rules pertaining to hand-held phones...

It's the worry and concern about where we can all see this going and crossing from the 'generally reasonable' into the 'flipping absurd' - as it is already being suggested!

As a thought...

Where are the laws governing a parent's responsibilty to KEEP THEIR FLIPPING HELLSPAWN OUT OF THE ROADS?!

eg: You're speeding slightly (say 35 in a 30 - and don't even pretend for one second liek we don't ALL do it! Even cop cars)... Kid runs out in front of you and the ENTIRE repsonsibility for what has just happened is now upon the shoulders of the driver. No matter that had you been doing 30, they would have been just as splattered... Where is the legal duty of care on the parent to keep the bloody kid out of the road in the first place?

Considering MOST pedestrian deaths are VASTLY the ped's fault, why are there not resources, campaigns and laws of similar magnitude being targetted at them?!

[Splashout]

Haha when that bloody advert comes on with the kid saying "If you hit me at 30 theres an 80%... blah blah

I always find myself shouting at the TV "If I wasn't in the bloody road in the first place theres a 99.9% chance I wouldnt get knocked over"

I still stand by that for them to make any of this work they need to look at the traffic cop to camera ration no camera system is gonna be able to nab someone for having a fag, using a phone etc etc.

[gghc87]

Interesting debate.

See Here

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1096

And See here

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.as...=2&Rank=224

Discuss

The interesting one is

1961 under 9 million vehicles = Road fatalities approx 8000 by the graph.....

2005 now 32.9 million vehicles = Road fatalities 3201 ( in the script.........)

Edited February 28, 2007 by gghc87

[cly_mitchell]

The way I see it is, hippies are anti- well everything. Politicions want to generate revenue. In order to tax or penalize the public the politicions need support. Some people are annoyed by cell phones, (group 1); hippies hate people trying to make something of themselves, ie. people conducting business on cell phones, (group 2); people who will agree to anything in the name of safety, ie. chicken sh*ts (group 3); people that want to talk while driving but want to be pc (group 4). How many people use their phones in the car, everybody, including groups 1 thru 4. How much revenue can you generate by penalizing people for a law they all break? Mucho $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Not to long ago a hippie fell out of a Sequoia, that he was living in, in California and died. Cal-Tech scientist have concluded that this is definitive proof that nut really does'nt fall far from the tree.

[karluk29]

just a quick one,,,errr proof it mr policeman, the merc/supra have black rear windows and the lotus you havent got a chance in hell of seeing from behind. if there coming towards you, there in the wrong lane bahahaha.

they would have to stop/turn round/chase you down, then pray that there front cam was on and gets you

good enough to proof you werent scatching your head. only time you will be caught is in traffic, when your not moving of on motorway and come along side.

[karluk29]

esprit aviation - last time i was in NYC there were more cops than citizens, suppose it keeps down proper crime, and that was 3 years ago. isnt NYC one of the safest places to go now crime wise? alot better then london/nottingham

[Couger]

Its not the phones that cause the accidents, its the the women who cannot resist picking them up for the pettiest reasons whilst driving, 99% of the time for some insignificant text or call from another woman.

[Tony K]

Before people had car radios, eating or drinking in the car was dangerous and frowned upon; now no one cares.

When cars began to have stereo and cassette players, they were called a "distraction that causes accidents"; nowadays you really don't hear that any more.

So for the past 10 years or so, cell phones have been the target of self-righteous hoity-toity holier-than-thou people. Give it time, and this too shall pass.

Funny, truckers (U.S.) have been talking on C.B. radios for decades -- they're not crashing left and right.

Quite frankly, there have been many long trips at night I have taken where having someone to talk to on the phone while driving kept me alert and awake, something no radio or CD could hope to do at any volume.

Cell phone use in the car is all about common sense, and driving is always about actively paying attention. Any decent driver knows when it is inappropriate (traffic/road conditions), and has the ability to not let it distract him, just as with coffee, food, radio, a passenger, or any interesting scenery he may pass.

[Iain]

<soap box>

To me - it's a BIG issue....

The number of excruciatingly near misses I've had on my motorcycles because some prat is paying more attention to his phone than anything else is *very* scary...

On a Bike - accidents can really hurt!

Several years ago I was nearly taken out by the Station Officer pulling out of a fire station - no blues and twos - but on the mobile. Completely oblivious that he'd pulled out in front of me - and that I'd missed hitting him by inches. To make it worse - same thing, same spot a few months later - and that was someone in the 'emergency' services ffs...

It's only because I ride very defensively in traffic and when I suspect a driver hasn't seen me that I haven't had a serious accident.

The tightening of legislation in this area is one of the few traffic related laws that gets my unquesstioned support....

Oh - and there seems to be a direct correlation between cars that appear to have broken indicators and drivers on mobiles - another peeve...

</soapbox>

OK - I feel better now!

Edited February 28, 2007 by Iain

[Esprit Aviation]

Karl,

Yeah, I think NYC is probably quite safe @ this point after 911. In fact we will be taking our kids to NYC in early April, and I am unconcerned about safety. We have taken them to Washington DC and Philadelphia, and had very litle reason for concern. Although, Philadephians were extremely rude and uncaring, which does give you pause for thought.

We actually live in upstate NY, near Corning (my wife works for Corning Inc.). Also just South of the Finger Lakes, and YES! Watkins Glen!

It seems that per capita, we have more of a police presence than large cities, and it appears to be out of proportion.

One thing I must agree on is the pedestrian problem. In the main sreet through Corning's older, quaint-shop section of town, the peds have exclusive right-of-way with no consequenses. All blame is automatically put on the driver. It pisses me off! If you're a ped then look both eff'n ways! After all you were given a head that swivels, a couple eyes and ears!

OK, enough. Where's the scotch!

[Evil_Dr_Fish]

Karl - a copper is a professional witness - his testimony IS evidence! (because they NEVER lie ) They don't need film of it. Especially if the mobile phone record then corroborates that the phone was indeed in use at that time.

Tony - here, eating in your car is an offense and people have been nicked for eating mars bars etc - there was one case where a woman was nabbed for eating said mars bar at a snail's pace while pulling away form a junction so a week later, The Sun (redtop sh1trag) went out and started giving out doughnuts in a traffic queue and then took a photo of some coppers eating them while driving!

Karl - sitting completely STATIONARY is ok... but while in slow moving traffic (and that would probably include stop-start) they can still nick you

[Bibs]

Karl - sitting completely STATIONARY is ok... but while in slow moving traffic (and that would probably iunclude stop-start) they can still nick you

I think that even if stationary, if the car is running or the keys are in the ignition, you are still deemed to be in control. Remember that people have been done for drink driving while sleeping it off in the back of the car with their keys in their pocket!

[Advantage]

Yep. Engine needs to be off.

[CharlieC]

<soap box>

The number of excruciatingly near misses I've had on my motorcycles because some prat is paying more attention to his phone than anything else is *very* scary...

On a Bike - accidents can really hurt!

I Second that. Its annoying as hell spotting cars pulling out as the driver has half his vision obscured by his hand. And its not just wehn I'm on my bike. I don't want them doing it when I'm in my Esprit either.

What I'm curious about tho is why they decide to do something about it now, unless of course, with the doubling of the fine they're counting on a revenue stream - perhaps thats why it was not enforced so strongly in the past? lulling car drivers into a false sense of complacency....?

The mind boggles...(well mine does anyway.... )

[USAndretti42]

Why can't the police just use the driving without due care and consideration law? Thing is with cell phones is that you can see the driver using it (unless you're in one of Karl's cars ) whereas, if they almost flatten you because they are messing about with the CD player, shouting at the naughty kids in the back (now there's a distraction) or eating fish and chips it's not so obvious.

I did read a while ago that someone was proposing banning navigation systems as they are "too distracting." I think that while driving around lost whle franticaly looking for direction signs, you are hardly concentrating properly on what's going on on the road. As usual, it's a case of pandering to the complainers rather than thinking about it and addressing the root cause, i.e. not taling driving seriously but just using it as a means of getting from A to B.