new tougher rules for mobile phone users

neilmcl

pogofish wrote: »

A near 50% drop in prosecutions/FPNs issued since 2009, despite no great evidence of any great change in usage and in my part of the country, its the joint lowest level of all. A mere 150 in 2014, almost all of which were issued during the one week in the year that officers were ordered to make the issue a priority.

Its not a matter of agreeing or not. The figures speak for themselves.

Since when do the figures (a source for these would be useful) backup your claim that "beyond a couple of token cases, police were not actually interested in doing anything about it".

Having the resources do something about it and not being interested are 2 different things.

neilmcl

pogofish wrote: »

A near 50% drop in prosecutions/FPNs issued since 2009, despite no great evidence of any great change in usage and in my part of the country, its the joint lowest level of all. A mere 150 in 2014, almost all of which were issued during the one week in the year that officers were ordered to make the issue a priority.

Its not a matter of agreeing or not. The figures speak for themselves.

Again, don't know where your figures are coming from but maybe you should have a look at the 2 spreadsheets linked on this page https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-09-05.44935.h&s=speaker%3A24879

There's a link to FPNs per year per police area and the other spreadheet show's figures for court case convictions.

A hell of a lot more than the tiny 150 you mention!

Furthermore, just because less convictions are being recorded doesn't mean offences aren't being dealt with. Over the last few years there's been an increase use of education courses being used as a first time offence approach.

Scarum

I drive past quite a few drivers using their mobiles - all captured on my car web cam.

neilmcl

Scarum wrote: »

I drive past quite a few drivers using their mobiles - all captured on my car web cam.

Hence the need for tougher rules.

pogofish

neilmcl wrote: »

Again, don't know where your figures are coming from

A hell of a lot more than the tiny 150 you mention!

Department of Transport - 2014.

Local press - And in my area the police made a big thing of their 150 prosecutions as being "much more" than in preceding years!

Same for the neighbouring area, which clocked an equal number despite most other traffic enforcement issues being if anything a growth area.

Complete apathy is attitude I've taken from the police/mobiles issue, right from the very beginning - They have never been interested IME.

Joe_Horner

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

That's clause should be removed, there is no reason what so ever to touch a mobile device whilst driving. what scenario would warrant such thing?
many modern phones come with Bluetooth to connect said phone to said vehicle. most vehicle has crash emergency systems anyway that dial emergency services in the event of an accident.

Ok, an example. Extreme maybe but it happened:

Coming back onto Anglesey about 6 or 7 years ago, I was on my own in the car and saw someone turn onto the A55 the wrong way towards Holyhead in the dark. They were in the outside lane heading towards the traffic coming off the Holyhead ferry and completely oblivious.

My side of the Dc was completely clear (there would have been one other car but she was on the wrong side of the barrier) so I phoned it in as a 999, while shadowing her and making as much noise etc as I could to try and get her attention. It didn't work, so I moved ahead to try and warn the oncoming cars and HGVs to slow down. That continued for about 8 miles before the Police managed to get to her and stop her.

Now I had to make the call but, if I'd stopped to do so, she would have been miles ahead before the police were aware and possibly under the wheels of an HGV that hadn't been warned by the lunatic in a Mitsubishi who'd been flashing his lights, blaring his horn, and giving a "slow" hand signal out the window.

In those very specific circumstances the Police were quite happy with my actions but, if it was a blanket ban and absolute offence, they would have had to prosecute me - they could hardly pretend they weren't aware.

Richard53

There are currently no technical solutions that would work without major problems. I would say education and better enforcement are the way forward.


I am old enough to remember when drinking and driving was considered a bit 'naughty' but broadly acceptable. Then the Govt decided to act, with the introduction of a legal blood alcohol limit and the breathalyser in 1967, followed by a massive publicity campaign and rigorous enforcement. The result was a massive reduction in drink-related accidents, and over time a change so that drink-driving became socially unacceptable to most people, and a source of shame rather than mild guilt. The same needs to be done for mobile phone use. It may take a while, but it is an effective approach.


Penalties need to reflect this, too. The prospect of an automatic 12 month ban for drink-driving is a big deterrent to most. Something similar would be suitable for mobile phone use - perhaps doubling for second and subsequent offences. And please let us get rid of the 'exceptional hardship' rule. If you need to drive for your job, then you should be more aware than most of the need to drive safely, and should act accordingly.

Joe_Horner

GingerBob wrote: »

I've got it! Our own (compulsory) surveillance camera, attached to a collar round our neck. Twenty-four hour feed to the police. Think of that. Virtually all crime would be cleared up.

I've thought for a long time that the benefits of chipping all babies at birth are underestimated.

Give it a couple of generations and we could have a fully satellite-tracked population which would not only show who was at the scene of a crime when it happened but also where those people are now when you're looking for them. Not to mention the benefits for tracking missing kids, dementia-riddled OAPs.

And after all, you'd have nothing to fear if you were doing nothing wrong..... :beer:

GingerBob_3

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I've thought for a long time that the benefits of chipping all babies at birth are underestimated.

Give it a couple of generations and we could have a fully satellite-tracked population which would not only show who was at the scene of a crime when it happened but also where those people are now when you're looking for them. Not to mention the benefits for tracking missing kids, dementia-riddled OAPs.

And after all, you'd have nothing to fear if you were doing nothing wrong..... :beer:

I think you might.

pompeyrich

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I've thought for a long time that the benefits of chipping all babies at birth are underestimated.

Off topic but that reminded me of a conspiracy theorist I used to work with who claimed the flu jab was just a cover and "they" were injecting a chip that not only monitored the recipient but could be used to control them too. :rotfl: