Mobile phone/driving government consultation

[ufkacbln]

As I have posted before, I would like to see the end of the points system

With some 7,000 motorists driving legaly with more than 12 points and some with 40 - 45 points it is a joke anyway

Lets make it simple

A 1 month ban instead of a point so a 3 point offence - 3 month ban, 6 point offence - 6 month ban

If the drive was banned for a month for each point, starting at the moment the award was made, and without any exceptions it would be a far greater deterrent

 

[oldstrath]

When I was young, drink-driving was seen as naughty but broadly acceptable. After a massive campaign of education and some heavy enforcement over decades, this is no longer the case. The same needs to be done for mobile phone use. Mandatory year's ban and £1000 fine for a first offence, and it gets worse from there. There is no phone call that is so urgent that you can't pull of the road, turn off the engine, and call the person back.

I would keep the current exemptions for 999 calls and so on. I would suggest the same for hands-free use as well, but that would be far harder to enforce.

Not sure why 999 calls should be allowed, they can surely be done from a stationary car?

More broadly, I am puzzled by the lack of support for the simplest solution of all -mandatory fitting of jammers keyed to the car ignition - engine on, phone no make signal. Ok, minor inconvenience might be incurred by passengers, but most of the 20th century was lived without in car phones, what is the problem?

 

[newfhouse]

More broadly, I am puzzled by the lack of support for the simplest solution of all -mandatory fitting of jammers keyed to the car ignition - engine on, phone no make signal. Ok, minor inconvenience might be incurred by passengers, but most of the 20th century was lived without in car phones, what is the problem?

You would create an interference bubble of indeterminate size around the vehicle and affect legitimate users of the service. Many cars use the phone networks for control, tracking and navigation. The emergency services are about to change their communications to a cellular based service.

 

[steveindenmark]

You would create an interference bubble of indeterminate size around the vehicle and affect legitimate users of the service. Many cars use the phone networks for control, tracking and navigation. The emergency services are about to change their communications to a cellular based service.

I think at some stage the excuse was given was if you trapped in your car you couldnt phone out.

So the question needs to be asked. How manybtimes does this happen and what did we do before mobiles.

 

[mjr]

I think at some stage the excuse was given was if you trapped in your car you couldnt phone out.

So the question needs to be asked. How manybtimes does this happen and what did we do before mobiles.

Probably often enough. My old fishmonger crashed off a cliff near Kewstoke and used his part-smashed mobile phone to call for help, resulting in his rescue a lot sooner than would have otherwise happened because that's not a busy road he fell from and he'd gone down an unbarriered bank after trying to avoid an out-of-control dog, leaving only a few branches broken if you knew where to look and you couldn't see the wreck from the road. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7348581.stm is one report from about the time - the local newspaper pages about it seem to have been taken offline.

Could the problem be overcome by linking the jammer to the ignition, though?

 

[Spinney]

Could the problem be overcome by linking the jammer to the ignition, though?

I think that was what oldstrath suggested

 

[jefmcg]

Could the problem be overcome by linking the jammer to the ignition, though?

That would be the only way that would make sense, as it would draw power, you wouldn't want it running all the time or it would flatten the battery.

But the reason you wouldn't do it is as @newfhouse says. You can't restrict it reliably to the front seat of car, a jamming signal could easily interfere with users who aren't in the car. The only way around that would be to make the car a faraday cage for appropriate RF, but that would prevent calls from the car at all times (unless you opened a window or door).

 

[jefmcg]

Probably because you get into a whole lot more difficulty trying to enforce that and there's a lot of hands-free calling equipment sold so there would be a lot of lobbying. It probably should be dealt with, but let's get a grip on the worse and easier problem of handheld calling first.

That drove me to google, then to wikipedia and finally to http://www.nsc.org/DistractedDrivingDocuments/ImpactCellPhoneConversationsDriving.pdf

the meta-analysis suggests that costs in driving performance are equivalent across hands-free and hand-held phones,

So, as is usual, legislation is not data driven, but purely on prejudice. I think it is "obvious" to anyone (including me) that a`hand held phone is more dangerous than a handsfree. It just happens that what seems common sense is not actually true.

The fact they won't even open hands free to consultation probably means your supposition about lobby is probably true. It's not just handsfree manufacturers, but cars are becoming more and more interactive with phones, and I imagine the motor industry has a lot of sway in Westminster.

 

[Drago]

Make it a banning offence like drink driving.

 

[newfhouse]

I think at some stage the excuse was given was if you trapped in your car you couldnt phone out.

So the question needs to be asked. How manybtimes does this happen and what did we do before mobiles.

We had to send someone to find a landline to call for help. And what about telematics? Or eCall?

That would be the only way that would make sense, as it would draw power, you wouldn't want it running all the time or it would flatten the battery.

But the reason you wouldn't do it is as @newfhouse says. You can't restrict it reliably to the front seat of car, a jamming signal could easily interfere with users who aren't in the car. The only way around that would be to make the car a faraday cage for appropriate RF, but that would prevent calls from the car at all times (unless you opened a window or door).

I would not want the risk of interrupting or degrading police, fire or ambulance communications. To jam effectively in a closely defined area is very difficult, and hence costly, and not future proof. Let's find a better way to discourage drivers from being distracted.

 

[Glenn]

Not sure why 999 calls should be allowed, they can surely be done from a stationary car?

A few years ago my brother was threatened with a knife (by a well known to the police local Streatham drug dealer) after he didn't stop on the major road to let the dealer from a side road. He dialed 999 whilst being chased and was told to stay on the line and drive to the nearest police station, should he have stopped to make the call?

 

[jefmcg]

A few years ago my brother was threatened with a knife (by a well known to the police local Streatham drug dealer) after he didn't stop on the major road to let the dealer from a side road. He dialed 999 whilst being chased and was told to stay on the line and drive to the nearest police station, should he have stopped to make the call?

Ah, there's the armed maniac exception that I've allowed for

Why are they exempt? In a very few circumstances where stopping may be more dangerous than driving with a phone (eg on a motorway, when being pursued by an axe wielding maniac) why shouldn't you stop before making a 999 call?

Though now I think about it, it's probably not about safety. I guess if a driver thinks "I should call the police about the robbery in progress I just witnessed, but if I stop to make the call, I'll be late for the meeting I am going to" they would prefer they make the call while driving, than not call.

 

[Drago]

I've had to call 999 while on a major road. It's was balancing the minor risk of a mishap by making the call against the certainty of someone dying if I didn't (it was a mental health patient laying down on a motorway carriageway.) I pray it wasn't one of Oldstrath's relatives.

 

[RichardB]

I agree with your post except the above bit. Some calls in life are that important. But then they are also so important as to make a £1000 fine and a ban insignificant too.

Fortunately, few of us ever have to take that kind of call.

We are talking about answering calls here, not making them as a result of something external. And I really can't see what could make a call so urgent that it must be answered instantly while driving, rather than 30 seconds later in a lay-by. Death of a parent? House on fire? Ebola outbreak in your street? 30 seconds would make no practical difference to any of those, and arguably if you are taking a call of life-or-death importance, it is better to do so in a parked car than in lane 3 of a busy roundabout, in case panic or grief cause you to lose your compos mentis. I would genuinely like to hear of an incoming call where 30 seconds' delay in answering would be significant.

Why are they exempt? In a very few circumstances where stopping may be more dangerous than driving with a phone (eg on a motorway, when being pursued by an axe wielding maniac) why shouldn't you stop before making a 999 call?

Not my exemption, but the law as it stands. I don't object to exemptions in principle, as long as they are good ones.

A few years ago my brother was threatened with a knife (by a well known to the police local Streatham drug dealer) after he didn't stop on the major road to let the dealer from a side road. He dialed 999 whilst being chased and was told to stay on the line and drive to the nearest police station, should he have stopped to make the call?

That seems a reasonable course of action to me.

I've had to call 999 while on a major road. It's was balancing the minor risk of a mishap by making the call against the certainty of someone dying if I didn't (it was a mental health patient laying down on a motorway carriageway.) I pray it wasn't one of Oldstrath's relatives.

And this one.

Though now I think about it, it's probably not about safety. I guess if a driver thinks "I should call the police about the robbery in progress I just witnessed, but if I stop to make the call, I'll be late for the meeting I am going to" they would prefer they make the call while driving, than not call.

Less sure about this one. Important to report crime, of course, but (assuming it's not an armed robbery) if no lives are in danger it's much less urgent. Lives > property.

 

[jefmcg]

Not my exemption, but the law as it stands. I

Lol. No, I didn't assume you had enacted the legislation

Less sure about this one. Important to report crime, of course, but (assuming it's not an armed robbery) if no lives are in danger it's much less urgent. Lives > property.

Here's a good example of when you should call 999 while driving, when someone saw a car apparently crashing off a motorway
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...uple-lain-car-wreck-scotland-days-bannockburn

Those are circumstances that can't wait for you to find a safe place to stop, as every second counts. (Tragically, this is a case where the call made not difference at all. )