new tougher rules for mobile phone users

neilmcl

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Can you put some context to that? Phone use being the causation in fatal accidents, what's the percentage?

Google :rotfl:

Car_54

Laurie_Sicard-Askey wrote: »

Here's some facts:

Correction: some facts, some survey findings, and some opinions.

Car_54

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Can you put some context to that? Phone use being the causation in fatal accidents, what's the percentage?

17 fatalities due to phone use. 1,775 total fatalities (latest figures from 2014). So it's about 1 (one) percent of the total.

That's not to minimise the problem, especially when it's totally avoidable.

Eliminating mobile phone use will save lives, but let's not imagine it will mean a major improvement in road safety.

For what it's worth, I think the proposed 6 points will have a big effect. However, we'll see many more people going to court rather than accepting an FP.

Fat_Walt

Car_54 wrote: »

17 fatalities due to phone use. 1,775 total fatalities (latest figures from 2014). So it's about 1 (one) percent of the total.

That's not to minimise the problem, especially when it's totally avoidable.

Eliminating mobile phone use will save lives, but let's not imagine it will mean a major improvement in road safety.

For what it's worth, I think the proposed 6 points will have a big effect. However, we'll see many more people going to court rather than accepting an FP.

You do realise those figures are not accurate don't you?

unforeseen

Fat_Walt wrote: »

You do realise those figures are not accurate don't you?

So what are the accurate figures then?

Fat_Walt

unforeseen wrote: »

So what are the accurate figures then?

We'll never know until phones of drivers are examined in all fatal collisions.

George_Michael

Car_54 wrote: »

However, we'll see many more people going to court rather than accepting an FP.

As long as the accused are willing to take the risk of getting a higher penalty then that might be a good thing.
A few well publicised court cases where the fines and points handed down are far higher than those given for an accepted fixed penalty may well help convince some to not take the risk in future.

1886

I think there should also be a law for people not being allowed to use their phones when they go out to a restaurant.

I was on holiday in Cornwall recently and happened to look around a really nice restaurant we were in and on three of the other four tables people were using their phones instead of enjoying the company of the people they are with.

It's very, very sad

shaun_from_Africa

1886 wrote: »

I think there should also be a law for people not being allowed to use their phones when they go out to a restaurant.

I think that would be going too far and is something that shouldn't be legislated against.
After all, where would you draw the line? A restaurant with a Michelin star, McDonalds, your local pub, motorway services?

There is nothing to stop the owner of the restaurants or pubs asking people not to use mobiles and if they refuse, then asking them to leave but the problem is that mobile phone use is so common amongst the younger generation (and I know that this is a generalisation but how many elderly people do you see walking down the road staring at their mobile?)
As it's often the younger people who spend most money on entertainment and socialising, very few establishment owners or managers would want to take the risk of alienating a group of people that may be their main source of income.

unforeseen

Fat_Walt wrote: »

We'll never know until phones of drivers are examined in all fatal collisions.

So you consider the figures given in the spreadsheets at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras50-contributory-factors are inaccurate but have no proof