Safe Speed Forums

I have no sympathy for people who get caught on their mobile phone while driving. A hands-free kit is, what?, £20 or the alternative is to stop somewhere safe and have the phone conversation.

Is is possible to have a phone conversation while driving and not have your driving diminished? Not sure, but probably not.

Is it the same for smoking / eating a chocolate bar?

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

I am personally of the view that the overriding message to drivers should be that they are expected to be in control of their vehicle at all times, and if that means to the exclusion of any extraneous activity not directly connected to that task then so be it. This should be communicated through road safety messages.
If the public deems it unrealistic to stop doing these extra activities and choose to undertake them then they are doing so through their own choice and at their own risk..
If they get seen doing so by a police officer who deems it to have the potential to compromise their ability to concentrate and/or control their vehicle whether or not such a dimished control is being displayed at the time, then they leave themselves open to prosecution for DWDC. This should be communicated through road safety messages.
If they have a crash and kill someone then they leave themselves open to prosecution by the appropriate legislation which may result in jail. This too should be communicated through road safety messages.

Overall, the message must be that we are all responsible for what we do when we are behind the wheel of our cars and killing someone, unintentioally though it may be, as the result of an intended action is not acceptable and may be punished by imprisonment.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Exactly - it's easy to imagine a situation where someone goes to someone's house with a gun, intent on killing them - but ends up merely injuring them, or shooting but missing. With the way the law is going we might expect this criminal to get off scot-free.

It's a very slippery slope.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

What is the difference between driving an automatic car and eating a choccie bar and driving a manual and operating, say, the hazard lights. Do either of these activities require anything other than superficial action on behalf of the driver?

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

Surely the criteria must be the conditions at the time versus whether the attention deficit caused by the activity caused the driver to be failing in his/hers attention to the conditions - something a trafpol might rate on a scale of "give them an acid lecture " - to "tickets galore "

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

You've lost me.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

The Gary Hart conviction has always looked dodgy. Yes he was culpable for DWDCA for driving when he had had little sleep, but he took the rap instead of the Highways Agency, who failed to provide proper crash barriers to prevent a vehicle going off the motorway on to the railway track. It could just as well have been an alert driver of a 44 ton artic who had a blowout, lost control and ended up in the same place. Hart was wrong to lose control for the reasons he did, but was merely unfortunate to land up on the tracks and then very unlucky that a train came along and again when a second train hit the first.

I remember when the judgemnet was given. I was utterly gobsmacked that he was found guilty.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

Its not helpful IMHO to try and engage in these 'whats the difference between doing X and Y' scenarios because they can become an exercise in reductio ad absurdium. Drivers don't need to be given examples of what they should not do whilst driving simply because they tend to believe that if they are doing something not included in that list then its OK.
This is why I tend to agree that the mobile phone law was implemented poorly; drivers simply need to understand that they are expected to be in control of their vehicle at all times. If they are seen to be doing anything that compromises that ability then they may be liable for prosecution whether they may think they are being safe or not. If they are unsure, don't do it.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

All the evidence is that it is the conversation that is the principal distraction NOT holding the phone. The law (stupidly) impliedly endorses hands free use as 'safe' by criminalising specifically handheld use.

Indeed it i,... but we would have a helluva job to prove the chattering caused the crash.
#
When the furoe hit over the "apple case woman" .. I posted up at the time that I had taken a Granny Smith from the fruit bowl and went to my car in the driveway. I live in a cul-de-sac and we chose our house because of a large double garage and a crescent shaped driveway .. which means I can drive in one entrance and out the other .


I mention this so that the loony lurky fringe will not go off on one about that poor bloke related to some mad Swiss people drives a car whilst chomping a Granny or whatever...

Anyway, I remarked at the time that I supported the police officer's actions fully as trying to control a car on a curve or reversing in one's driveway was actually an "insane" thing to do. I found it very difficult to do so and I've been trained to hold one of them radios in the past Not that I had to practise this skill that often as I was fortunate enough to be a young "Black Rat" in the good old days when we usually had a partner all the time. These days, even in Durham .. with cutbacks, sickies, etc, - we often find officers alone in cars. In the apple case - the officer was alone and his in-car vid had failed on him. Hence the helicopter aerial view.


But .. on the press release as a whole.. as a police officer I have to say that I am appalled that those who cause death by careless driving and are neither qulified nor insured to do so can receive "community service" as a punishment.

To me there is an element of "mens rea" in their action and I would want this type locked away for the max of 14 years.


Yes, there are folk who make a silly error which results in devastated lives for EVERYONE involved - and it is those lapses of pure human failings which merit the judge's discretion of leniency and ONLY those cases really.

There are other exceptions too. Ted remembered "mahali" - the parent of young Hayley Day who died in 2004 and I recall Rebecca Saunders and her baby sister Kirsty, who were the victims of a recidivist TWOCCER who had "previous for dangerous driving offences" These are the ones who deserve LIFE and not a full 14 yeqars to be honest On this one .. I would agree with spindrift and his chums.


The pig ignorant blatters and the type who do not actually collide .. but whose actions create the circumstances which result in other drivers making serious errors out of panic and fear - now this is where the law really has to apply discretionary leniency of justice too. Mahali's child - the driver was living under threat of being charged with causing her death. 100 witnesses testified that his driving was not the fault .. but that an aggressive moron who has never been found created the circumstances of tragedy.


It is for that reason that the law has to be very careful when meting out charges and justice.


But if someone knowingly takes charge of any motorised vehicle whilst knowing they are unfit to do so.. or engages knowingly and in full knowledge that the law prohibits such action of driving whilst unqualified or uninsured, using a moboile phone, driving whilst intoxicated by something - then we can argue "mens rea" in such cases.


I would discourage such activity - especially in my patch which does "crawl with if you values your liberty .....

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.