Fines for using mobile while driving to increase

Car_54

AdrianC wrote: »

Did that ever happen? Really...?

This is the fruit of my research http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14212052.Driver_who_refused_to_accept_penalty_for_eating_banana_gets___145_fine/?ref=trn

AdrianC

So one person claiming it happened to them... but don't you just know there's more to THAT than the person involved claims...?

Car_54

AdrianC wrote: »

So one person claiming it happened to them... but don't you just know there's more to THAT than the person involved claims...?

Indeed. It's not difficult to imagine the lady in question failing the "attitude test"!

AdrianC

Car_54 wrote: »

Indeed. It's not difficult to imagine the lady in question failing the "attitude test"!

Plus the subtle detail that she did actually admit in court that "the way she drove fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. "

Richard53

GingerBob wrote: »

So the man in the street (car) can use a CB radio hand-held mic then, without breaking the law?

Two major differences:


Simplex vs duplex transmission


Brief, functional and formal vs conversational. emotional, personal.


The law reflects the much higher risk of distraction in the latter of each pair.

shaun_from_Africa

Richard53 wrote: »

Two major differences:

Simplex vs duplex transmission

Brief, functional and formal vs conversational. emotional, personal.

The law reflects the much higher risk of distraction in the latter of each pair.

I don't know where you got this idea from. There is no mention of the method of transmission in the relevant law. If it was as you say, because of the higher risk of distraction in a duplex conversation, why is it illegal to text or send/receive voice messages when driving?
There is normally nothing conversational, emotional or personal about accessing the internet on a mobile phone yet this is also prohibited when driving.

Car_54

Richard53 wrote: »

Brief, functional and formal

CB radio must have changed a lot since I knew it.

George_Michael

Richard53 wrote: »

Brief, functional and formal vs conversational. emotional, personal.


The law reflects the much higher risk of distraction in the latter of each pair.

So are you saying that having a phone conversation can't be conversational, emotional, personal or distracting if that conversation takes place on a hands free phone setup?

Richard53

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I don't know where you got this idea from. There is no mention of the method of transmission in the relevant law. If it was as you say, because of the higher risk of distraction in a duplex conversation, why is it illegal to text or send/receive voice messages when driving?
There is normally nothing conversational, emotional or personal about accessing the internet on a mobile phone yet this is also prohibited when driving.

No, the law doesn't mention that. And as you say the law isn't totally consistent on the topic anyway. It was just something to throw in the mix, following people asking why taxi drivers and police can use radios, whereas the public can't use mobile phones, as if they were somehow equivalent. To me, the two modes of communication are completely different, that's all. I've done both, and while I can use a two-way radio while driving and feel completely focused on the driving task, I find even a hands-free phone call very distracting.

EssexExile

Richard53 wrote: »

I find even a hands-free phone call very distracting.

Making a call hands free is just as distracting as handheld:

Professor Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and health policy at the BMA, said using a hands-free kit while driving was just as dangerous as using a hand-held set.

So why do Volvo, who built their reputation on making safe cars, build handsfree functionality into their cars?

It's a rhetorical question.