|
|
|
UK bans new drivers for cell phone use while driving
- Thread starter jc100
- Start date
All the laws in the world won't help if they're not enforced. Sounds like they're at least trying in the UK.
Cops here need to get out from behind their radar guns and out into traffic to see what people are really doing. Might be an eye-opening experience for them.
Cops here need to get out from behind their radar guns and out into traffic to see what people are really doing. Might be an eye-opening experience for them.
Cell phone laws are a joke. You can drive with a candy bar or coffee in your hand but not a cell phone. What's the problem?
The conversation is the distraction, not the phone. The whole premise is wrong.
How about having to pass an intricate driving test while having an intense cell phone conversation?
You can't text one word but it's OK to reprogram your sound system because it isn't hand held.
If you ever manage to get out to somewhere where there's light traffic, you'll notice that most people have not seen a cop behind a radar gun in a really, really long time.
You appear to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Are you for or against cell phone use in cars?
daught
Well-known member
Yep, I can drive with a coffee in one hand and text with the other while switching gears and steering with the foot.
And NZ, Japan and Australia?
Pretty harsh.
But definitely gets the message across. Well... actually it doesnt, cause you're not using your phone.
Imagine if they'd get that law here, you'd have the roads cleared of traffic in a matter of a month.
Insurance companies would be licking their lips over that too.
But definitely gets the message across. Well... actually it doesnt, cause you're not using your phone.
Imagine if they'd get that law here, you'd have the roads cleared of traffic in a matter of a month.
Insurance companies would be licking their lips over that too.
Riceburner
Well-known member
holding a coffee or candy bar in your hand is very different from holding and using a phone. You have to dial it or answer it by looking at it and hitting buttons, etc. A bigger distraction than lifting something to your mouth to bite. Though even that can be a distraction. That is actually covered under distracted driving, though rarely enforced.
Not sure what you're getting at. I see lots of cruisers parked on various side-streets with their speed guns pointed at on-coming traffic. This is KW; perhaps it's different where you are.
I think public safety would be better served with those cops spending at least some time out amongst traffic rigorously enforcing all rules of the road, not just speeding, especially for offenses proven to be as hazardous as being drunk.
Riceburner
Well-known member
Speed enforcement is a revenue generator. It will always be there. If they wanted to increase safety, they would be patrolling randomly in marked cars. Hell, even a parked patrol car at the side of the road slows ppl down.
I'm saying avoid distracting conversations. You know that common sense thing we keep talking about that no one really knows anymore.
How about when a person calls another on a cell number they ask if the person is driving. If the answer is yes keep it simple and avoid getting the other person into a distracting discussion.
I agree that the conversation can be distracting. But the phone being interactive, is a distraction as well. If your stuffing a candy bar in your mouth, you do it automatically and without much thought. Phones on the other hand, need a look and button pushing, and are capable of texting, which requires more concentration, and button pushing.
A friend had a story of being pulled over back in the day when cell phones were a foot long or so. He was on the phone, eating, drinking, and having a smoke. Cop told him that was too much to be doing, and to pick one, or pull over somewhere.
I totally agree but one can't compare DUI with cell phone use because there are far more phone users than drinkers on the road. If there was a mickey swigging driver for every one talking on a phone the DUI ratio would be enormous.
The phone user argument would be that since deaths per participant is far less than DUIs the punishment shouldn't be as severe. How many would tolerate a seven day suspension not unlike HTA 172?
It is easily argued that a DUI blowing over 8 can not reasonably be expected to instantly sober up and drive home while a phone / text driver can theoretically instantly smarten up and carry on.
The huge number of people that use phones while driving carry a lot of weight. How many politicians are going to risk their jobs by campaigning on a total ban?
There would be a massive effect on the economy. We are collateral damage to profit.
What should the punishment be for use of a phone while driving?
A) No crash, just using
B) Crash but no serious injury
C) Someone dies
There's already been a proposed legislature change.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3755016/ontario-plans-harsher-careless-driving-penalties/
Interesting proposal.
The problem I see with it is the number of people it affects, largely because we have become sloppy undisciplined drivers. Watch traffic. How many people make proper turns and stops? Lane discipline is a joke. Legally speaking, double white lines are only a hint.
For example, the reason given for lenient fines in the death of a motorcyclist killed by someone making a left turn is that there was no intent to harm. We all make mistakes, oopsies that would be a slap on the wrist if no one was injured and still a slap on the wrist if someone is hurt. If with intent it becomes dangerous driving and serious charges are laid.
If you do work at a major chemical plant or refinery you would likely be familiar with the risk triangle or pyramid.
Typically they state that for every 300,000 at-risk acts there are 3,000 near misses. For every 3,000 near misses there will be 300 recordable injuries. For every 300 recordable injuries there will be 30 lost work days and for every 30 lost work days there will be one fatality.
One has to take a safety course annually as a refresher and to bring attention to new regulations.
Failure to comply with the rules means getting walked to the exit gate and never allowed back in, even if there were no damages or injuries.
How do we bring that level of safety attitude to driving?
Do 300,000 unsafe left turns result in 3,000 WTF's, 300 panic stops, 30 fender benders and one death? If yes then you start with educating the perpetrators of the 300,000 unsafe actions. Hell will freeze over before that is addressed by annual retesting.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|