Police launch crackdown on drivers using mobile phones

[kfurbank]

Matt,

 

Try eating or drinking whilst driving next time you pass a police car and see if they take no notice!!!

[jeffbroadslover]

Hi MM,

 

I also used a CB back in the good old days.   Biggest problem was too many channels to choose from---could take ages to "find" the person you wanted to chat with.

 

Taxi 2-way radios were ok depending on if you were using single contact or the other system where you could here everyone's conversations which were nothing to do with the job you were doing.

( customers could also hear everything especially when 2 of the staff were arguing)

 

 

One thing that really annoys me with people who "are doing the right thing" with mobiles ......the ones who pull up anywhere when the phone rings.  They don't seem to have a brain to work out if they are in a safe place to stop to take the call.   The bit they don't understand is they are still " in charge of the vehicle"   !!!!

 

 

Jeff

[Matt]

Matt,

Try eating or drinking whilst driving next time you pass a police car and see if they take no notice!!!

www.findlaw.co.uk/law/motoring/other_motoring_topics/500443.html

Will I be arrested for drinking, eating or smoking whilst driving?

It is not a criminal offence in itself to drink, smoke or eat whilst driving a vehicle however there is a potential punishment of failing to drive with due care and attention. It is therefore a matter of how the individual activity affects your ability to drive reasonably and safely on the roads.

[kfurbank]

Matt,

 

Semantics, as I said, falls under driving without due care and attention. People have been successfully prosecuted for eating or drinking whilst stationary at traffic lights. It could be argued it is far safer to eat or drink whilst stationary, then when moving. Regardless precedents have been set and I wouldn't take the chance either way.

 

As for texting, or using a smartphone whilst driving, should be an instant 3 points followed by a ban for a further offence. So many people use smartphones for much more than just texting or phone calls these days.

[Matt]

Matt,

Try eating or drinking whilst driving next time you pass a police car and see if they take no notice!!!

I'm normally in the police car ;-)

[MauriceMynah]

Back seat and wearing the cuffs Matt?

And there's me thinking what an upstanding fellow you are!!!

[bigbream]

Changing the subject a bit but do any of these offences apply to the rivers/broads because when im out fishing I see kids as young as 6/7 at the helm on there own along with people eating , drinking , using phones etc.

[MauriceMynah]

A fair point AJB, and certainly there has to be some level of legislation.

However, I was brought up on and around boats and was pretty competent by a very early age. No 'nanny state' to stop me in those days. In 1964 aged 9, I brought Richardson's "Fancy Free" into Thurne dyke, turned her round and put her in to moor. My crew for this was my cousin (14) forward, and my sister (13) aft. Ok, my dad and my uncle were on board, but not in the cockpit. They knew it to be unnecessary.

I am in no doubt that skills I learned at that age saved my life in later years, one example being that whilst driving a car on icy roads not long after passing my test, I got into a skid on a duel carriageway and controlled it because it was so like being at a helm. Ok it was faster, but the rules were the same! (It was a Ford Anglia, so I wasn't going that fast!)

So, as far as I'm concerned, If I see a youngster at the helm without supervision, and if he is in control good luck to him and I doff me cap to his parents. If he's not in control then... well.... I blame the parents!... I still wouldn't make it an offence though!

[kfurbank]

AJB, The Broads byelaws cover some of those situations.

Byelaw 30 covers navigation by minors. If you are aged between 8 and 14 then to be at the helm of a motor vessel you must be closely supervised by someone over 18. By closely, they state that the person doing the supervision must be close enough to take over the helm. The person doing the supervision must also keep a proper navigational watch at all times.

 

Byelaw 83 states that a person should not be under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent that they are incapable of taking proper control of the vessel.

 

There is nothing that covers eating or using a mobile, but I guess Byelaw 10 Vessels to be navigated with care would loosely cover those situations. If you caused an accident whilst on the mobile phone then it could be argued you were navigating without care.

 

Edited to add that the byelaws referenced above came into force long after Maurice was 9

[MauriceMynah]

So did the 10 commandments! 

[BuffaloBill]

Matt may be able to answer this, but when the legislation

first came in, did you not have to switch the engine off?

If so, then just pulling over to answer can still get you the fine.

How does that legislation stand(if still in effect) with a hands

free system, Bluetooth headset or car radio or Satnav?

Just wondering as my car radio type automatically answers

whilst I'm driving. Same as DF, I can tell my radio/phone

which number to dial too with a simple "Dial Jenny" for instance.

I might also add that when coming into a roundabout, road

junction or other hazard, I stop talking until it becomes clear

road again.

[Baitrunner]

I would like to say that I am pleased they are cracking down on mobile phone use whilst driving.

 

Having said that, the driving without due care and attention whatever your doing is what they should focus on - talking to your friend in the car, wiping the baby's mouth, picking up a toy, smoking etc etc. So many to choose from and then there are the plain idiots who haven't got a clue or never use a mirror other than for a shave or to apply make up. The middle lane hoggers, roundabout lane changers (cutter uppers) etc.

 

What about changing a cd, changing a track on you MP3 player - too many to count.

 

I used to like it before I had the bluetooth things in the car because it was an excuse not to speak to anyone - I do use it now (hands free of course), but hope I don't let it take my mind of the road? And I have been known to say hold on just negotiating a roundabout (so I can focus on it).

 

So will manufacturers remove drink holders from cars now (drinking is just as bad IMHO). Radios? 

 

And then one gripe I have with some modern cars (any Audi drivers out there) is the combined audio/heating controls that really are a distraction just to turn the fan up or down - Bring back simple and obvious controls - I am sure they could still look nice.

 

And finally, what about the idiots who don't know what a fog light should be used for and the fact most modern cars will have a warning light on the dash if you lose a headlight     Change it!!!

 

Phew, it's good to talk!!  

 

And I agree statistics need to be used correctly - A friend of mine had to do a speed awareness course and the course tutor stated 20% of accidents are caused by speeding. So one of the guys in the class piped up - so statistically it's safer to speed if 80% are caused by people not speeding!  Now I am sure we all appreciate the point the tutor was trying to make, but the interpretation was left open.

 

I am sure a lot of us remember the who har about having to wear a seatbelt and I hated it when the law changed - now it's second nature and would never dream of being in a car without one on. Like helmets for any old bikers out there.

 

Coor best calm down now.

[MauriceMynah]

I dislike laws that are there "for your own protection". Laws should be in place to protect others from your stupidity/crassness/existence.

 

If a motor cyclist wishes to ride without a helmet... let him.

If a driver prefers not to wear seat belts... let him... it's all the same to me!

 

People should be positively encouraged to trespass on railway lines, as well as to swim in fast flowing rivers...OH VERY WELL THEN, not actually encouraged !!!

 

 

Long live the Darwin Awards.

[sean8390]

Speed triple wrote accidents WILL always happen , actually they don't RTC, s will always happen( road traffic collision , )collision meaning someone is always at fault whether the act thats caused the collision was accidental or through neglect , the emergency services dropped RTA a long time ago ,

As for wearing seat belts sometimes laws help protect the younger and not so wise , the OLDER and still no wiser if they want a face full of steering wheel happy days just don't scream whilst we cutt you out, a dashboard lift takes longer if ya mush is embedded in it , shame to ruin a young persons face though through not being a bit more savvy

[Matt]

Matt may be able to answer this, but when the legislation

first came in, did you not have to switch the engine off?

If so, then just pulling over to answer can still get you the fine.

How does that legislation stand(if still in effect) with a hands

free system, Bluetooth headset or car radio or Satnav?.

Yes I believe you have to have the engine off in the eyes of the law........

My interpretation is that It has to be hand held, in a cradle and pushing buttons is not hand held.

In my experience seat belts and phone offences are 10 a penny. No point dealing with any offences unless you are 100% sure the offence has occurred as another one will be along soon....

[GeoffandWendy]

As an long distance truck driver for twenty years, before I retired, you will be surprised what I have witnessed whilst out on my travels. Besides the idiots on mobile phones, I've seen women, putting on make up, brushing their hair and even applying nail varnish.

I've seen people watching a video placed on top of the dash and even a guy reading a newspaper, spread across the steering wheel. Is it any wonder, that there are so many accidents on the roads. The trouble is, the police are never about at the time.

Anyone caught doing any of these things I have listed, should not only be heavily fined, but banned from driving for ten years, and for life, if they cause a fatal accident.

The trouble is, there is no proper way of policing the way people drive, but with the introduction of more and more cctv cameras, the chances of getting away with it is becoming harder to avoid.

 

I wonder if this will become law for boat drivers. What would be your reaction if someone steered into the side of your boat and took a chunk out of your stern or bow, because he was busy on his mobile phone? I don't think you would be very pleased. 

[Baitrunner]

MM. Sorry but are you s plonker?

Whilst I sort of agree with laws to protect others, as Sean States sometimes people need encouragement and convincing of the safety merits of seat belts and helmets.

Along with the fact some poor sod has to scrape you off the dashboard or the road.

Have you ever seen a serious RTA? If you have i can't believe your comments!

[MauriceMynah]

No Mark, you should know me a little better than that. I have no wish to scrape people off the road, and yes I have seen some pretty terrible things but what I was describing was a concept.

I wore crash helmets (one at a time though) when I rode a motor cycle even though it wasn't compulsory. Similarly I wore seat belts before that was compulsory too.

My objection is that the nanny state made it law.

I have seen (and helped recover) bodies that have been in the water for some days, yet Life Jackets are not compulsory.

I have seen people dying of lung cancer, yet Cigarettes are not illegal.

I fully agree that where a driver does something dangerous to other road users, that driver should be punished. I do not hold that view if that driver does something that is dangerous to himself alone. He should be allowed that freedom.

How come it's allowed to where nothing more protective than a bobble hat when skiing, yet a crash helmet must be worn when riding a low powered moped?

Why are cyclists allowed to ride with no protective head gear?

We even recognise the term "Dangerous sports" which some people do just for fun, perfectly legally.

It even gets discussed here from time to time about drunkenness on a boat, but it seems that some hold the opinion that although the fellow safe in the cockpit must be as sober as a judge, the idiot staggering about on the roof is fine. 

 

No Mark. I do not think that people should do stupid things, I just don't hold with there being laws to stop them. If that makes me a plonker, then plonker I am and proud of it.

 

Talking about plonkers... has anyone heard from Dylly (Royal Tudor) of late?

[GeoffandWendy]

I know a Plonker, he's called Rodney! Now where have I heard that?

 

Could it be 'Only Fools & Horses!

[grendel]

MM, I haven't even seen any posts on facebook  from RT over the past few days either.

Grendel

[BroadScot]

Yes, good point MM, I have missed Timbo's quips of late. I do hope he is ok.

 

Iain.

[MauriceMynah]

Just sent the old fart an e-mail asking him where he is... or where he thinks he is if that's somewhere else!

[BroadScot]

You have such an eloquent way with words MM

 

Iain.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

No Mark, you should know me a little better than that. I have no wish to scrape people off the road, and yes I have seen some pretty terrible things but what I was describing was a concept.

I wore crash helmets (one at a time though) when I rode a motor cycle even though it wasn't compulsory. Similarly I wore seat belts before that was compulsory too.

My objection is that the nanny state made it law.

I have seen (and helped recover) bodies that have been in the water for some days, yet Life Jackets are not compulsory.

I have seen people dying of lung cancer, yet Cigarettes are not illegal.

I fully agree that where a driver does something dangerous to other road users, that driver should be punished. I do not hold that view if that driver does something that is dangerous to himself alone. He should be allowed that freedom.

How come it's allowed to where nothing more protective than a bobble hat when skiing, yet a crash helmet must be worn when riding a low powered moped?

Why are cyclists allowed to ride with no protective head gear?

We even recognise the term "Dangerous sports" which some people do just for fun, perfectly legally.

It even gets discussed here from time to time about drunkenness on a boat, but it seems that some hold the opinion that although the fellow safe in the cockpit must be as sober as a judge, the idiot staggering about on the roof is fine. 

 

No Mark. I do not think that people should do stupid things, I just don't hold with there being laws to stop them. If that makes me a plonker, then plonker I am and proud of it.

 

Talking about plonkers... has anyone heard from Dylly (Royal Tudor) of late?

 

Excellently put John.

 

As someone who still rides bikes, i would ALWAYS wear a crash helmet. However, many years ago, i used to tear around the streets on a 750 Suzuki, wearing a bikers paddock jacket, jeans and trainers. I`ve always worn a full face helmet and gloves, as i used to feel the cold in my hands (still do).

 

But in my car, i never used to wear a seatbelt because one of my fathers colleagues was nearly killed in a car accident because he WAS wearing a seatbelt. I`ve also read reports where people have been killed because they were wearing a seatbelt, so i made it my choice not to wear one. The only reason i wear one now, is because my car has an alarm that gets louder if you don`t wear it. I never feel safe being trapped by a seatbelt, and to be honest, with 4 airbags around me, why should i?.

 

It`s all very well having all these gizmos etc that can pick up people speeding, people on their mobile phones, or people committing those dispicable criminal acts of eating a choccy bar while driving, but it`s just a pitty these gizmos don`t pick up cars that are dangerously unroadworthy, not insured, or being driven by people that are under the influence of drink or drugs, now that is far more important than someone driving in a straight line with a phone to his or her ear, and i don`t give a damn who disagrees with me.

 

If someone is doing something that`s causing you NO problems whatsoever, SHUT UP WHINGING ABOUT THEM and let them get on with it.

[Matt]

I was once first on scene to a car that had "barrel rolled" there was a chap standing at the side of the road supporting his right arm. Turned out he was the driver and had a broken collar bone. His two passengers were laying in the road in cardiac arrest caused by the crush injuries as the car rolled over them.

Guess who had a seatbelt on?