Police to sieze mobile phones after a RTC

Strider590

Quiet_Spark wrote: »

How are features such as emergency assistance meant to work if we impose phone jammers in cars?

Your taking me too literally.

I'm merely pointing out that they'd rather make money, than actually stop people using their phones. There are tonnes of ways they could discourage drivers, but they don't do anything..... Thus drivers are allowed to think they can get away with it.

It's like they're setting us up to fail, instead of putting their efforts into stopping people doing it in the first place. We see plenty of anti-speeding campaigns and drink driving campaigns, but what about phone use?

Whilst it is incredibly dangerous, I think the authorities see it as a nice cash cow.

Quiet_Spark

Strider590 wrote: »

Your taking me too literally.

You categorically stated that vehicle manufacturers should fit phone jammers as standard, there was no room for movement or misinterpretation in that statement at all.

colino

Way off post G&S but your post "With one or two exceptions above, those who are not quite as equal as some others can't hand their own freedom to the state quickly enough.
Total surveillance gets ever closer, welcomed by the sheep.

'The brainwashing's working Dave', 'yes it is Daddy-Tony', 'but when's it my turn to be middle east peace envoy?'


You David Icke "sheeple" nutters really should stick to your medication and stay off of other forums.

GabbaGabbaHey

Johno100 wrote: »

Plenty of apps out there for Android and Apple IOS that will delete your phone history as you go along, just saying.

Yes, but your network operator's logs will also have all that information, and the fact that you have bothered to wipe it from your phone might just make plod decide to get hold of a copy.

F1F93 wrote: »

Also, am I not allowed to use my hands-free bluetooth kit?

Unfortunately (in my opinion, anyway) yes, you are. But that doesn't mean that you are not a danger to yourself and to other road users, as all the evidence shows that it's the cognitive load that makes using a mobile while driving so dangerous - it has very little or nothing to do with physically holding the device. There are (properly conducted, published, peer-reviewed) studies that show that hands-free mobile use is at least as dangerous as drink driving.

londonTiger

heard about this on the radio. a police officer and phoned and said it's unworkable.

1) it's unworkable to do this on every collision - it requires quite a bit of forensic work to pull data out of the phone to gather sufficient evidence. So it should be resigned to instances where there are fatalities or other serious injuries.

2) driver can use a handsfree kit and if that is the case then the phone will give a false positive

3) A lot of the times when you're on social media on your phone and put it on sleep the phone will still keep updating and the social media site/app will remain open. If the police get the phone out of sleep the social media app will be open and will look like the driver was using it while driving when they weren;t.

CKhalvashi

londonTiger wrote: »

heard about this on the radio. a police officer and phoned and said it's unworkable.

1) it's unworkable to do this on every collision - it requires quite a bit of forensic work to pull data out of the phone to gather sufficient evidence. So it should be resigned to instances where there are fatalities or other serious injuries.

2) driver can use a handsfree kit and if that is the case then the phone will give a false positive

3) A lot of the times when you're on social media on your phone and put it on sleep the phone will still keep updating and the social media site/app will remain open. If the police get the phone out of sleep the social media app will be open and will look like the driver was using it while driving when they weren;t.

If a hands-free kit was used and an accident was caused, then it could still be a driving without due care.

If social media is updating, surely it will be at the time of the last tweet. Just checked my phone and it has 6 messages that haven't yet been answered (oldest 14h ago, most recent 17m ago). This would be decent enough proof on my particular phone that it hasn't been touched in the last 14h, as it's on the main screen.

CK

sithmaster

what about gps as some people use there phone as that while driving in a holder, would a signal blocker would block that aswell?

Johno100

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

Yes, but your network operator's logs will also have all that information, and the fact that you have bothered to wipe it from your phone might just make plod decide to get hold of a copy.

Yes they could get the information from the phone company, which they do in the most serious cases anyway. But do you really think in a minor bump they would invest that sort of time and effort to first determine that information has been wiped and then get information from a network operator and interpret that?

Anyway we are now talking hypothetically, as ACPO have confirmed there is no truth in this story and the present policy is not going to change.

[Deleted User]

sithmaster wrote: »

what about gps as some people use there phone as that while driving in a holder, would a signal blocker would block that as well?

I would think it would, along with blocking "proper" GPS devices.

System

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I would think it would, along with blocking "proper" GPS devices.

Not forgetting 23cm civil radar systems and some point to point radio link systems

In other words, it aint gonna happen.