# Daily mail anti texting while driving campaign



## Inertia (15 Sep 2016)

The Daily Mail actually doing a useful campaign for once

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20160915

They seem to be 'successful' in a lot of their campaigns, maybe they have gotten wind of something happening.


----------



## Spinney (15 Sep 2016)

They'll have to go a long way to make up for all the immigrant bashing, xenophobia and Lucy Meadows.


----------



## mjr (15 Sep 2016)

The Mirror campaign will succeed but the Fail will claim it.


----------



## Rooster1 (15 Sep 2016)

We all see it all the time. It seems to make me more angry when I see it and i'm on my bike. I think to myself, do you actually give a sh*t about peoples lives, about my life. I'm not the sort that lets it go and I will bang on windows and make phone gestures at anyone I see texting or calling whilst driving. I have had so many near missed by ****holes on their phones. I had someone pull out in front of me last year on the phone, I chased him down and banged on the window - would he stop his conversation - no. I put me and my bike in front of his car and said, put the phone down or stay there all day. He did eventually. I reported it. Nothing happened.


----------



## Bazzer (15 Sep 2016)

Campaign probably linked to the wider publicity which seems to be being given to the subject. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37370828


----------



## Dogtrousers (15 Sep 2016)

In a recent job I used to get a coach from my place of work to the railway station, through heavy traffic. From the coach window I could look down inside people's cars and it was horrific to see the number of people with mobiles on their laps.


----------



## ianrauk (15 Sep 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> In a recent job I used to get a coach from my place of work to the railway station, through heavy traffic. From the coach window I could look down inside people's cars and it was horrific to see the number of people with mobiles on their laps.




I see the same every single day from my bike seat commuting through SE London. It's epidemic.


----------



## coffeejo (15 Sep 2016)

I thought it was a Mirror campaign?


----------



## HertzvanRental (15 Sep 2016)

1 month purge, £1000.00 fine and 12 points.


----------



## raleighnut (15 Sep 2016)

Spinney said:


> They'll have to go a long way to make up for all the immigrant bashing, xenophobia and Lucy Meadows.


It's a start though.


----------



## Inertia (15 Sep 2016)

Spinney said:


> They'll have to go a long way to make up for all the immigrant bashing, xenophobia and Lucy Meadows.


Absolutely, I hope its a sign of some change in attitudes though



> Transport Secretary Chris Grayling told the Commons he would shortly be announcing "tough plans" to tackle the use of mobiles by drivers.
> 
> "This requires, in my view, strong action. This is happening far too often," he said.



Darrel Martins brother Lee was killed by a driver who had been stopped 8 prior times using his phone


> "The issue for me is that he shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. There were eight opportunities before this to stop the man from driving around.
> 
> "People seem to think it's a right to drive a car. Surely it's a privilege."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37370828


----------



## Drago (15 Sep 2016)

Lets hope Mr Grayling replaces the 19,000 police officers lost over the last 5 years. Without someone to catch the villains it doesn't really matter at all what the law says on the subject.


----------



## Inertia (15 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> Lets hope Mr Grayling replaces the 19,000 police officers lost over the last 5 years. Without someone to catch the villains it doesn't really matter at all what the law says on the subject.


We need both, it doesnt matter how many the police catch if they are let off lightly at the other end.


----------



## summerdays (15 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> Lets hope Mr Grayling replaces the 19,000 police officers lost over the last 5 years. Without someone to catch the villains it doesn't really matter at all what the law says on the subject.


It would be good if the police could use the cash from the fines to employ more traffic cops. And if the penalty from using your phone was sufficient to make people think twice before picking it up. Currently it seems socially acceptable, and the chances of getting caught so low!


----------



## Spinney (15 Sep 2016)

Crush the phone. That'll concentrate their minds.
Plus a driving ban. Even a month would do to concentrate their minds, and none of this bleating about needing it for their job.


----------



## numbnuts (15 Sep 2016)

Whats the point of a campaign if you only dish out justice like this
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/unbelievable-another-one-walks-free.207236/


----------



## Drago (15 Sep 2016)

Crush the car and the phone!


----------



## jim55 (15 Sep 2016)

Compulsory months ban no fine cos that's not a deterrent , just get them off the road


----------



## classic33 (15 Sep 2016)

Spinney said:


> Crush the phone. That'll concentrate their minds.
> Plus a driving ban. Even a month would do to concentrate their minds, and none of this bleating about needing it for their job.


Mines been run over twice, still working.

Dropped from an open pocket.

Never used whilst on the move though.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (16 Sep 2016)

ianrauk said:


> I see the same every single day from my bike seat commuting through SE London. It's epidemic.



I see the same thing where I am, particularly in the last 2 years. I agree it's an epidemic. People are addicted to their phones and can't leave them alone for 20 minutes. We need to make it socially unacceptable like drink driving, because at the moment people clearly don't see the harm.


----------



## G3CWI (16 Sep 2016)

CanucksTraveller said:


> it's an epidemic



+1



CanucksTraveller said:


> clearly don't see the harm



...or anything much else unfortunately. It's the potential of being hit from behind that worries me the most.

The penalties need to be greater. I quite like the suggestion of a one month ban put forward earlier - in addition to a fine and points of course.

Letter to MP time I think.


----------



## jefmcg (16 Sep 2016)

ianrauk said:


> It's epidemic.


Um, while epidemic can be an adjective, it's usually a noun. I'd say either "it's an epidemic" or "it's endemic".


----------



## Starchivore (16 Sep 2016)

Spinney said:


> Crush the phone. That'll concentrate their minds.
> Plus a driving ban. Even a month would do to concentrate their minds, and none of this bleating about needing it for their job.



Definitely. It would be great if the police carried around a hand-held vice or something and used it to crush offender's phones right in front of them.... 

Whether or not they get to take the memory card out first or not..... depends on the severity of the offence.


----------



## potsy (16 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> Crush the car and the phone!


I like that for a first offence, second time the driver stays in the car


----------



## G3CWI (16 Sep 2016)

...e-mail sent to MP. Have you sent yours?


----------



## coffeejo (16 Sep 2016)

G3CWI said:


> ...e-mail sent to MP. Have you sent yours?


I emailed mine yesterday about something else. I'll wait til next week.


----------



## Accy cyclist (16 Sep 2016)

Starchivore said:


> Definitely. It would be great if the police carried around a hand-held vice or something and used it to crush offender's phones right in front of them....
> 
> Whether or not they get to take the memory card out first or not..... depends on the severity of the offence.




Preferably crush the phone while the tosser's hand is still holding it!


----------



## mjr (16 Sep 2016)

jim55 said:


> Compulsory months ban no fine cos that's not a deterrent , just get them off the road


I know NZ isn't a great example in many ways, but they do at least have on-the-spot one month bans for some offences, including going 40kph over a speed limit and drink-driving, with the possibility of further penalties imposed by a court. They also have limited/work-only licences, but you can't get one of those if you suffer an on-the-spot ban.


----------



## ianrauk (16 Sep 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Um, while epidemic can be an adjective, it's usually a noun. I'd say either "it's an epidemic" or "it's endemic".


Good for you


----------



## jonny jeez (16 Sep 2016)

Tower bridge last night, car swerved as i passed it caused me to cross the white line. Driver was watching a porn video on his phone, which was on his lap....whilst driving,...in the rush hour...across a congested bridge...full of tourists.

and no kleenex.

WTF!!!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Sep 2016)

Inertia said:


> The Daily Mail actually doing a useful campaign for once
> 
> https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20160915
> 
> They seem to be 'successful' in a lot of their campaigns, maybe they have gotten wind of something happening.



I suspect that is the case. Ministers have agreed now to change legislation so that texting drivers will receive 6 points per offence and fine doubled to £200. This will mean an instant licence revocation for younger drivers still within their probation period. Of course, the DM is now crowing about _their_ success.

GC


----------



## CanucksTraveller (17 Sep 2016)

It's alright increasing the penalty, but it still relies on them being caught, and there's the rub. There's hardly any police on the roads now, and those that are, aren't going to be noticing too much texting going on while they're driving round in something covered in blue and yellow battenburg. People put their phones down when they see a police car. 

I walked up to a zebra crossing this morning on my way to work, I stepped on to it and the next car just carried on through and almost run my toes over. You guessed it, she had her phone in her lap and was looking down at it AND typing on it while going through the crossing. 

Cyclists, bus passengers and pedestrians see this every day because of the vantage points we have. Shame the police don't share these vantage points, and don't have the resources to properly focus on this. This is a problem we're stuck with for many decades.


----------



## Inertia (17 Sep 2016)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-37391803

The mirror and mail both claiming responsibility. Cynical journalism Imo, no way this is a response to the mails 2 day old campaign.


----------



## raleighnut (17 Sep 2016)

Here's an idea. In the same way that drivers are breathalysed after an accident as a matter of routine why aren't mobile phones checked to see if the numpty was using them at the time of the incident and *prosecuted to a similar level*. I know it is shutting the stable door after the fact but it may be a start to a change in attitude to this, after all 40yrs ago no-one gave a hoot about drink-driving and anyone caught/fined was given sympathy by their mates*. *(with some of the worst offenders being Police Officers, Magistrates and Judges, I know cos I used to drink with em, often 'after hours' )


----------



## summerdays (17 Sep 2016)

Well calls received/made and texts are easy to see if the phone has been used. But presumably there are other logs of what the phone has been doing such as browsing the Internet or apps? How easy are they for the police to access at the road side. (And also logs of what has been recently deleted!)


----------



## raleighnut (17 Sep 2016)

summerdays said:


> Well calls received/made and texts are easy to see if the phone has been used. But presumably there are other logs of what the phone has been doing such as browsing the Internet or apps? How easy are they for the police to access at the road side. (And also logs of what has been recently deleted!)


With a phone number and IP address the details of what that device was doing at any particular time should be easy to ascertain, maybe not at the roadside by an average copper but by a dedicated team. The police have 'in-car' access as to whether a car is Taxed, Mot'd and Insured so it wouldn't be a massive leap in technology to bring phones into that system, GCHQ are watching most computer/internet usage already.


----------



## AM1 (17 Sep 2016)

As others have mentioned who is going to enforce this? there is a distinct lack of police presence anywhere either on foot or in cars, I drove down to Milton Keynes yesterday in torrential rain and it's fair to say that it was probably the worst rain I have ever driven in on a motorway however these adverse conditions didn't seem to affect others who continued there journey at unabated speed,some with mobiles in hand quite happily tailgating others whilst making an important call

IMHO driving standards and people's behaviour behind the wheel seems to have significantly dropped in the last 10-15 years, tailgating, boy racers in there souped up Corsa's racing each other, mums in there Chelsea tractors on the school run getting there oh so precious offspring to school and oafs in Audi's, the list goes on and on

There is no deterrent, there are no police so the government can increase the punishment but the idiots perpetrating this madness know that they can get away with it, it's the attitude of 'Meh'

Here's a good idea though to combat one of my pet hates, idiots in cars passing to close either deliberately or because they just don't realise or are just plain thick, although I still don't know where they will find the manpower to carry it out though...


----------



## mjr (18 Sep 2016)

Good at the points being doubled but it is meaningless unless they also close the "exceptional hardship" loophole.


----------



## summerdays (18 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4471907, member: 45"]Of course they have. They wait for a sniff of a change in law, then pretend they're starting a campaign to bring that change.[/QUOTE]
But it does give publicity about the change to a group of their readers.... So at least it has one benefit!


----------



## sheddy (18 Sep 2016)

Will the Police confiscate the phone at the roadside ?


----------



## Tin Pot (18 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> Lets hope Mr Grayling replaces the 19,000 police officers lost over the last 5 years. Without someone to catch the villains it doesn't really matter at all what the law says on the subject.



Agree with you, but on the point of catching mobile phone use in cars...you know the powers to monitor the metadata, but not the content, of civilian communications..?


----------



## AM1 (18 Sep 2016)

sheddy said:


> Will the Police confiscate the phone at the roadside ?



I doubt it because there are none which is one of the reasons it's become such a problem


----------



## simongt (18 Sep 2016)

Albeit I was driving at the time, but coming down the A.1 a while ago, passed a lass in a Ford Ka. She was cruising at about 60 and I noticed that she was looking down at her lap. Ahh, I though, texting. Nope, she was eating a pasta pot meal - !


----------



## sheddy (4 Oct 2016)

Can a texting offence (no crash) be charged under Careless Driving ? If not, why not ?
(I assume the penalty would be considerably higher than 6pts + £200 fine)


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (4 Oct 2016)

If the police went around in a red Suzuki Swift they'd see enough to halve the national debt and remove 50% of drivers from the roads in a day.

Well, probably exaggerating a bit but you get my drift ...


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (4 Oct 2016)

... that's if you could find enough police to fit in a Suzuki Swift


----------



## sheddy (5 Oct 2016)

But that is the FPN, (£100, 3pts)
Careless has a maximum fine of £5000, 9pts.

If the CPS has video evidence then go for it.


----------



## the snail (9 Oct 2016)

sheddy said:


> Careless has a maximum fine of £5000, 9pts.


I think you'd have to run over the queen or a magistrate or something to cop that sort of sentence though.


----------



## Inertia (31 Oct 2016)

Driver jailed for 10 years for using his phone when he crashed into stationary traffic a horrific example of what can happen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37823457


----------



## steveindenmark (31 Oct 2016)

A years driving ban would do the trick.


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

Inertia said:


> Driver jailed for 10 years for using his phone when he crashed into stationary traffic a horrific example of what can happen.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37823457


The video on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37822003 is just astonishing. It cuts out just before the collision, so is probably safe for work, although his behaviour and shocked expression are pretty scary.


----------



## the_mikey (31 Oct 2016)

If businesses were made responsible for their staff use of phones and devices they'd soon rip out all of the crap gadgets they use to plague mobile workers with messages and nags for responses. There are three mobile devices in my work van, a phone, a tablet like device that delivers messages to the driver whilst driving, another device that handles call response details, these are on all the time and keep updating and drivers are conditioned to respond as soon as possible, waiting until they stop is not an option.


----------



## mjr (31 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> A years driving ban would do the trick.


 Really? I think ten years jail is bordering on lenient for killing four!


----------



## Tim Hall (31 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> A years driving ban would do the trick.


Huh? Are you saying a one year driving ban is a suitable penalty for the driver in this case? The driver who was scrolling through music on his phone so killed four people?


----------



## sheddy (31 Oct 2016)

A one year driving ban (for any motorist using a cellphone when driving)


----------



## Tim Hall (31 Oct 2016)

User said:


> I don't think the post was a reply to, or comment on, the previous one.


Good point, although @steveindenmark 's reply does seem to be lacking in context.


----------



## steveindenmark (1 Nov 2016)

sheddy said:


> A one year driving ban (for any motorist using a cellphone when driving)



This is what I meant.


----------



## Illaveago (1 Nov 2016)

I think having your car crushed or impounded as a penalty may make people think more carefully, regardless of who owns the vehicle. The penalty for not having road tax has a similar outcome.


----------



## Inertia (1 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> The video on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37822003 is just astonishing. It cuts out just before the collision, so is probably safe for work, although his behaviour and shocked expression are pretty scary.


He seems to look several times but I think his attention is so focused on what he is doing with the phone it doesnt register with him. Loosely related but hopefully the increasing automation of vehicles will help, even if full driverless control is a way off, collision warnings could come sooner.


----------



## mjr (1 Nov 2016)

Inertia said:


> He seems to look several times but I think his attention is so focused on what he is doing with the phone it doesnt register with him.


Television news reported that expert opinion given in court was that he'd not looked up fully for at least seven seconds and possibly 45.


----------



## sheddy (30 Dec 2016)

another petition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/167172/


----------



## G3CWI (3 Jan 2017)

sheddy said:


> another petition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/167172/



It's a shame that the people who post so many of these petitions have such a poor grasp of English. I'm sure that it reduces the number likely to sign up.


----------

