Using mobiles when driving.

[jon0844]

It could never ever become mandatory given such a device is highly illegal. It could prevent the use of a phone to call the emergency services and it would never ever be approved. End of.

 

[AM9]

It could never ever become mandatory given such a device is highly illegal. It could prevent the use of a phone to call the emergency services and it would never ever be approved. End of.

So we live (or die if in the wrong place at the wrong time) because of a perceived entitlement to access to a comms. device. At leat it will increase the need to call the emergency services. How ironic that part of its utility is dependent* on its erroneous use. A bit like guns for self defence in the US. How did we manage to venture onto the streets just 30 years ago without a vocal 'umbilical cord' joining us to everybody we know?

* Or maybe it is the mobile comms., industry and its high level lobbying that is behind the defence of this negligent practice.

 

[jon0844]

Who is defending it? Most vehicles have Bluetooth now. A wired headset costs pennies and a wireless one a few quid.

Some people are just too arrogant to comply with the law, or even just use common sense. You see the same arrogance extending to failing to signal and generally drive like arses.

I don't see how anyone is lobbying to promote illegal activities, but suggesting signal jammers as a solution is mad.

 

[JamesRowden]

I don't see how anyone is lobbying to promote illegal activities, but suggesting signal jammers as a solution is mad.

Agreed. It would surely be simpler and more effective to have all cars fitted with a system that has CCTV (of the same quality as on a mobile phone) to observe the interior of the car (including the driver) and the car's surroundings, and which feeds back the inputs from the driver and the location and speed of the car. This would allow the police to instantly become aware of a driver speeding, driving the wrong way along a one way road, failing to use indicators and potentially drivers jumping red lights. Police cars and static sensors would be able to detect cars which don't have the system fitted, and every elderly driver could have their driving assessed at regular intervals to check if they are still fit to drive.

The camera recordings would also be useful for providing evidence for crimes committed when a car is passing the scene.

Obviously this system would be expensive to implement. But I see it as the only way to effectively eradicate bad driving. Anyone who thinks that personal privacy is a reason for not having this system is either a criminal or they need to get past their irrational fear.

 

[90019]

This would allow the police to instantly become aware of a driver speeding, driving the wrong way along a one way road, failing to use indicators and potentially drivers jumping red lights.

Anyone who thinks that personal privacy is a reason for not having this system is either a criminal or they need to get past their irrational fear.

Who would be monitoring these cameras to see offences taking place and inform the police?

 

[JamesRowden]

Who would be monitoring these cameras to see offences taking place and inform the police?

Computers would be able to automatically recognise certain crimes (e.g. speeding, not indicating). Police officers at base could randomly sample people's driving far more effectively than they could in a patrol car, and the driver would have no idea that they are being reviewed (and so would also have way to know that they aren't being reviewed at any particular point in time). Also, if a crime is reported at a location with cars passing, a computer could try to use the cameras on the cars passing the incident to view the criminals and so allow the viewing police officer to accordingly update the officers who are heading to the scene.

The last three months (or a different length to time) of data could be stored in a police database and later reviewed if thought to be relevant to a crime.

 

[jon0844]

I suspect you'd have the deterrent being increased insurance premiums if your car detects certain things, rather than it backing a police issue. However the obligatory dash cam (recording front, rear and inside) could store data that the police could access after an incident.

If insurance companies require something then people will either accept it, or find another mode of transport.

 

[AM9]

The habit of phone use in cars needs to become a social issue like drink-driving has, but it has taken over 40 years for alcohol to be almost universally recognised with a lot of pain and anguish for innocent people in the process. Seat belts took less time but the old hackneyed 'nanny state' and personal freedom issues where still voiced long after there was concrete evidence that seat belt use increased safety rather than reduced it.
One only has to observe the stupidity of people losing themselves in mobile phone conversation when walking in crowded areas where they are oblivious to their surroundings.
On a slightly different tack, I note that there are now many drivers wearing ear plug headsets. I believe that habit has always been outlawed so even if they are listening to music, they may become subject to censure or penalisation, - especially if that could be seen as a hands-free conversation on a phone. White headsets are much easier to see from outside the car.

 

[jon0844]

I've never understood why drivers (and also cyclists) would use headphones or in ear phones to listen to music and become oblivious to sounds around them.

At least on public transport, the use of them might at worst result in you missing an important announcement.

 

[tony_mac]

On a slightly different tack, I note that there are now many drivers wearing ear plug headsets. I believe that habit has always been outlawed so even if they are listening to music, they may become subject to censure or penalisation, - especially if that could be seen as a hands-free conversation on a phone. White headsets are much easier to see from outside the car.

You don't need to be able to hear at all to legally drive a car.
Talking on a headset is perfectly legal. As is listening to music.

 

[90019]

You don't need to be able to hear at all to legally drive a car.
Talking on a headset is perfectly legal. As is listening to music.

People do get prosecuted for using headphones while driving - if nothing else it can land you with a charge of driving without due care and attention.
Deaf people are a bit different, since they're used to being deaf and make up for it in other ways, whereas someone just using headphones isn't, and is less likely to be making allowances for their hearing being impaired.

 

[tony_mac]

The claim was that wearing a headset while driving was illegal, which is wrong.

Using hands-free devices when driving
You can use hands-free phones, sat navs and 2-way radios when you’re driving or riding. But if the police think you’re distracted and not in control of your vehicle you could still get stopped and penalised.

Yes, it could contribute to other offences, but so could singing, smoking, or picking your nose. None of which are illegal either.

 

[ExRes]

You don't need to be able to hear at all to legally drive a car.

I was honestly surprised when I checked this out, I do wonder how you lip read an emergency services siren though, I'm deaf in one ear and it takes a few seconds to pin down which direction a siren emanates from, mind you, a vast majority of the 'drivers' on the road seem just to ignore them

 

[krus_aragon]

I was honestly surprised when I checked this out, I do wonder how you lip read an emergency services siren though, I'm deaf in one ear and it takes a few seconds to pin down which direction a siren emanates from, mind you, a vast majority of the 'drivers' on the road seem just to ignore them

I guess that's what the flashing lights are for...

I also take a few seconds to locate the source of a siren, without any hearing impairment. I find I'm quicker to do it on a bicycle, as if I turn my head 90 through degrees I can identify the direction immediately. No such luck in an enclosed car.

 

[ainsworth74]

I guess that's what the flashing lights are for...

Plus I guess drivers in Devon are much less courteous because drivers in the North East always pull out of the way of emergency service vehicles when they've got their siren and/or lights flashing. I cannot recall ever seeing someone ignore such a thing. I've seen people who can't go anywhere (middle lane of a three lane junction for example) but they always try and get out of the way as soon as it is possible to do so.

 

[GB]

Agreed. It would surely be simpler and more effective to have all cars fitted with a system that has CCTV (of the same quality as on a mobile phone) to observe the interior of the car (including the driver) and the car's surroundings, and which feeds back the inputs from the driver and the location and speed of the car. This would allow the police to instantly become aware of a driver speeding, driving the wrong way along a one way road, failing to use indicators and potentially drivers jumping red lights. Police cars and static sensors would be able to detect cars which don't have the system fitted, and every elderly driver could have their driving assessed at regular intervals to check if they are still fit to drive.

The camera recordings would also be useful for providing evidence for crimes committed when a car is passing the scene.

Obviously this system would be expensive to implement. But I see it as the only way to effectively eradicate bad driving. Anyone who thinks that personal privacy is a reason for not having this system is either a criminal or they need to get past their irrational fear.

Who's going to pay for all this. With over 35 million registered vehicles in the UK how do you reasonably expect to have them all fitted and then monitored.

Technology has existed for a number of years to curb drink driving (that kills a lot more people than using a phone) yet has not been implemented so theres no chance of you preposterous system being taken up.

Anyone who thinks that personal privacy is a reason for not having this system is either a criminal or they need to get past their irrational fear.

Ah that old chestnut..."if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". Never mind civil liberties etc.

I don't have anything to hide but I certainly don't wan't a camera pointing inside my car any more than I would want a camera in my house and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want one (or more) in your house either.

 

[ExRes]

I guess that's what the flashing lights are for...

I also take a few seconds to locate the source of a siren, without any hearing impairment. I find I'm quicker to do it on a bicycle, as if I turn my head 90 through degrees I can identify the direction immediately. No such luck in an enclosed car.

I think you'll hear a siren an awful lot earlier than seeing a flashing light though, every second helps you to get in a position to assist the emergency services vehicle

 

[GB]

I'd disagree....at least depending on which way the emergency vehicle is coming and what type of road. If its coming from behind then its nearly always the flashing headlights I see before hearing any siren.

 

[ExRes]

Plus I guess drivers in Devon are much less courteous because drivers in the North East always pull out of the way of emergency service vehicles when they've got their siren and/or lights flashing. I cannot recall ever seeing someone ignore such a thing. I've seen people who can't go anywhere (middle lane of a three lane junction for example) but they always try and get out of the way as soon as it is possible to do so.

You really must be lucky in the North East, after numerous years of driving in the South East and London I don't find Devon any different, one problem seems to be 'rabbit in the headlights' syndrome but there most certainly is a lot of total diffidence, although I'm sure many of the 'couldn't care less' group would be very quick to complain if an emergency services vehicle didn't arrive for them within minutes

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I see people daily who either refuse to use their mirrors at all, or are just too thick to move out the way of an emergency vehicle, without either making the situation worse or carrying out a dangerous manoeuvre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sometimes people do very dangerous manoeuvres to move out of the way, though. And never do it through a red light camera - it is not a defence.

 

[158747]

I think anyone caught using their mobile phone when driving should have their phone confiscated in addition to a fine and having points on their licence. This will cause them maximum inconvenience and may act as a deterrent to others.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I think you'll hear a siren an awful lot earlier than seeing a flashing light though, every second helps you to get in a position to assist the emergency services vehicle

Round here ( Epsom ) emergency vehicles more often than not use the lights only and hardly ever the sirens. ( I guess some idiot resident must have complained? )

 

[JamesRowden]

Who's going to pay for all this. With over 35 million registered vehicles in the UK how do you reasonably expect to have them all fitted and then monitored.

Technology has existed for a number of years to curb drink driving (that kills a lot more people than using a phone) yet has not been implemented so theres no chance of you preposterous system being taken up.



Ah that old chestnut..."if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". Never mind civil liberties etc.

I don't have anything to hide but I certainly don't wan't a camera pointing inside my car any more than I would want a camera in my house and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want one (or more) in your house either.

I wouldn't be scared of having police cameras in my house if everyone else did. I think that after a time even you'd get over it......

 

[carriageline]

Computers would be able to automatically recognise certain crimes (e.g. speeding, not indicating). Police officers at base could randomly sample people's driving far more effectively than they could in a patrol car, and the driver would have no idea that they are being reviewed (and so would also have way to know that they aren't being reviewed at any particular point in time). Also, if a crime is reported at a location with cars passing, a computer could try to use the cameras on the cars passing the incident to view the criminals and so allow the viewing police officer to accordingly update the officers who are heading to the scene.

The last three months (or a different length to time) of data could be stored in a police database and later reviewed if thought to be relevant to a crime.

Trying to stop speeding (one thing I pulled from this) will never happen, look how much money car makers make from their performance cars and the like.

Speeding in the wrong place/time however!

If you genuinely want police cameras in your house or car, you want your head checking. I have nothing to hide, and I would never want that. What a stupid idea!

Sometimes people do very dangerous manoeuvres to move out of the way, though. And never do it through a red light camera - it is not a defence.

I've seen people swerve towards on coming traffic, smash their cars off road and all sorts to get out the way of an emergency vehicle. I normally just come to a stand where I am, and stay there. Having people dive all over the place is unpredictable. I don't even bump up a curb unless I really, really have to, not worth kurbing alloys!!

 

[Antman]

Round here ( Epsom ) emergency vehicles more often than not use the lights only and hardly ever the sirens. ( I guess some idiot resident must have complained? )

And why would that make them an idiot if they complained?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think anyone caught using their mobile phone when driving should have their phone confiscated in addition to a fine and having points on their licence. This will cause them maximum inconvenience and may act as a deterrent to others.

But surely they would just buy another one?

Having their driving licence confiscated would be a bigger deterrent.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Round here ( Epsom ) emergency vehicles more often than not use the lights only and hardly ever the sirens. ( I guess some idiot resident must have complained? )

There are a surprising number of complaints about siren usage, but I wouldn't think it would be sensible for an organisation to tell their drivers not to use them!

 

[Antman]

There are a surprising number of complaints about siren usage, but I wouldn't think it would be sensible for an organisation to tell their drivers not to use them!

A friend of mine is a copper and they are told to use them only when necessary, obviously this something they can't make a hard and fast rule about and it has to be at the drivers discretion when and when not to use them.

Complaints about their use are commonplace, including complaints from police staff who have been disturbed by them.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

And why would that make them an idiot if they complained?

It's slowing down the response times; most drivers round here don't seem to use their eyes and only get out of the way when ( if! ) the siren does eventually go on. It is certainly resulting in considerably more near-misses with the pedestrian texting zombies nearly stepping out in front of ambulances ( ironically ).

I wonder how those who complain about the sirens would feel if they themselves had to summon help and it took a minute or two longer to arrive because the vehicle was running on the lights only for most of the way?

 

[ExRes]

But surely they would just buy another one?

Having their driving licence confiscated would be a bigger deterrent.

It's easy enough and cheap enough to buy a replacement phone but for many coping with the loss of their SIM card would be a traumatic event to say the least