UKC

The police have announced a crackdown on drivers using mobiles when driving. I think this should be made as unacceptable as drink-driving. There was the recent case of a lorry driver who killed several people whilst preoccupied with his mobile.

I often see people using their mobiles whilst driving and wish I could "shop" them. I occasionally use a dashcam. If it happened to pick up another driver using a mobile I just wonder if the police would use it to bring a prosecution - assuming the offender's registration is visible.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I don't see why not.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I think it should be illegal to be distracted by dashcams whilst driving.

In reply to GrahamD:

That's actually a good point.
I took my go pro off my motorbike, forget a new can and a remap, a camera is the single best performance upgrade on a bike.

Slightly more serious though, a pal crashed his bike whilst trying to capture footage of a phone user with his helmet camera.

In reply to GrahamD:


What, like a satnav?
Mine is mounted out of the driver's field of vision.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I believe you would need to go and make a statement at a police station, the video could be used as corroboration but it's not enough to support a prosecution by itself. I don't know how likely the police are to actually pursue it.

In reply to FesteringSore:

Some police forces allow you to submit video evidence of people misbehaving on the road. Some seem now to be actively encouraging it.
However some others seem to do their best to discourage it. So think it would be very region specific on what would happen if anything.

In reply to FesteringSore:

A week long campaign by the police - well whoop-di-doo

But it won't make much difference as magistrates seem to believe that the right to drive is somehow so fundamental that it trumps everything else.

Here is a case where a guy had been caught using his mobile six times, but was allowed to keep his licence as, like almost half of drivers who clock up 12 points, he successfully pleaded "exceptional hardship" to avoid a ban. And 6 weeks later he hit and killed a cyclist whilst texting again

http://www.cyclinguk.org/news/20161115-groundhog-day-gard-texting-driver-pl...

I've no doubt that his sentence will be reduced as most drivers just get a slap on the wrist for such crimes

In reply to FesteringSore:


A satnav is a lot less distracting than a map in your lap.

Agree on phones, apparently even using a handsfree one has as big an impact on driver concentration as being at the alcohol limit.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I am pretty sure that driver mobile phone use is one of the most dangerous things happening on British roads.

I am also pretty sure that the present approach to enforcement is not working very well.

Lots of a properly qualified traffic cops is the first requirement and in some areas that is no longer available.

Start at something like £60 and one or two points for a road-side issued fixed penalty. If you don't accept it then the system steps up the consequences. There has to be a method of examining phone logs for evidence. Police don't want to do this because of the complications and cost but the simple fact is that this is the world we now live in and it has to be done.

In reply to Chris the Tall:






And he is so remorseful that he's appealing his sentance

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Any idea if the stats back up that viewpoint ? I've not managed to turn up any useful summary of how accidents are attributed between, say: speed, drink or phone use, others.

Its easy to get fixated on what gets the bulk of the coverage right now but it would be good to know where the killers really are.

In reply to GrahamD:


Even if such statistics exist, there will be a huge disparity between what drivers claim cause the crash, what the police/courts decide cause the crash and what actually caused the crash.

There was a case a couple of years ago (sorry can't find a link) where a motorist had sent or received something like 50 texts in the hour before he hit and killed a cyclist. He had received a text 90 seconds before the collision and was had a half-written response on his phone. A phone which he initially told the police he didn't have on him. Which they found hidden in the car. And yet the jury believed his story that the cyclist had appeared from nowhere and the phone was irrelevant.

When a guy drove into the back of my wife earlier this year, and could give no explanation why he hadn't noticed the cars ahead braking, the police told her "We know he wasn't on his phone because he said he didn't have it on him"

In reply to RyanOsborne:



Quite. I have a simple rule. My phone doesn't get used, with or without a handsfree, unless I'm stationary with the engine switched off. No call is so important that it can't wait until you can stop safely.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Possibly poor Daniel Squire.
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right-here/

Where apparently he, a roadie, decided to hop onto a narrow footpath before jumping back into the road a couple of hundred metres later in front of a van.

In reply to KevinD:

Thats the one - thanks for the link. But it sends a shiver down the spine to think that a jury could fall for that utter heap of crap

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Not when it's mounted anywhere on the windscreen it's not.. how people don't realise how dangerous this is baffles me. They block off so much field of view!

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Everyone has got a view coloured by individual miscarriages of justice, but there must be some overall picture emerging which is more accurate than yours or my personal experiences, or what the particular hobby horse the press are riding this week. Would be intersting to see that. Every driver can't get off prosecution can they ?

In reply to mrphilipoldham:


You think that having to look away from the direction you're going in, figure out where you are on the map, figure out where you're going to and what the next turnings are, and memorise them is less dangerous and distracting than using a sat nav? I use a sat nav on my windscreen on a regular basis, not in the middle of my field of view obviously, and don't find it distracting at all, just listen out for the turn announcements then a quick glance to check which lane I need or how far away it is.

I was on a training course recently with one of the country's top road safety auditors and this very topic came up, he confirmed that sat navs have reduced the instances of accidents caused by driver distraction within the vehicle.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Not distracting as such, but having a large block of your field of view hidden is certainly dangerous. Same for hanging air fresheners from your rear view mirror etc. Check out the highway code..

“Windscreens and windows MUST be kept clean and free from obstructions to vision.”

Car makers have finely balanced the thickness of the pillars around doors and windows to maximise strength for your own safety, and to maximise visibility for everyone elses..

In reply to GrahamD:



No idea, but the stats are utterly flawed anyway due to how they are collected. Remember that very often the police don't attend an incident, and even then recording of cause is very dodgy due to circumstances e.g. you can't get the other side of the story when the other side is dead without witnesses

In my view mobile phones are one symptom of a wider problem.

People don't perceive driving as something you need to concentrate on. This isn't helped by Car radios, gadgets etc, but seems to manifest itself massively with hand held phones. It's further not helped by an almost complete absence of police on our roads so poor behaviour is not punished.

Smart phones seem to be a particular problem - scrolling for music etc. The only way I can see this being sorted is either something draconian like mobiles switch off above 10mph being mandated (won't please rail commuters) or a big increase in policing and draconian punishments (9 points, car/van/truck impounded for a week (regardless of who owns it) and a stonking great fine).

I did see a suggestion somewhere else that the public should be entitled to percentage of the fine for providing convicting evidence against another driver... doesn't sound too bad an idea

Having bought a fancy new VW which is all connected and got an on board hard drive and things, I'm astonished by how involving the interface is (on the car dashboard - no voice control for some functions like finding that album you want) quite frankly, I'm amazed it's considered legal.

In reply to GrahamD:


Well a couple of statistics that might help.

Propensity to claim for damage only (i.e. not third party personal injury) is rising over the last 10 years from 8.7% to 9.6% (note this should not be unduly affected by growth of vehicles on the road as that also increases the number of policies which forms part of the calculation). This is despite massive increases in vehicle collision avoidance and driver assistance (traction control stability control etc) technology in the cars that are on the road.

My data shows that this increase in claims is primarily driven by 2 factors -
1. an increase in claims where one of the 2 vehicles involved was parked and unoccupied on the open road (there has been no real increase in car park prangs)
2. an increase in the number of single vehicle accidents

Both of these factors point to an increase in inattentive driving.

Whilst my data does not represent the whole the sample is significant and representative.

In reply to RyanOsborne:
Are you saying that it's safe for you to be awaiting instructions from a machine instead of concentrating on the road. I'm not having it that you don't look at this screen when prompted.
If it's safe to be distracted by a voice then why are there signs saying 'don't speak to the driver' on buses??
I would like to see the validating article for this.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I was following an erratically driven car at one point this afternoon which appeared to have a shoebox sat on top of the instrument binnacle. Turned out to be a phablet and a big screen sat nav sat side by side in suction-cup holders attached to the windscreen smack in front of the driver. I was genuinely surprised that they could actually see where they were going. Perhaps they actually couldn't. (I probably have footage of them on my discreetly-located dashcam, come to think. It's so neatly tucked away out of sight behind the rear view mirror that I usually forget it's even there.)

I tend to agree with Jim Fraser that police have a vanishingly small presence on the roads these days. That goes for in town as well as on the motorways and rural A roads. It's not just roads that are barely policed these days, though. Certainly up here in Scotland they're closing local police stations left right and centre, and shedding staff by the bucketload.

I also agree with Chris that society seems to be encouraging the view that driving is some kind of fundamental human right, rather than a privilege which is granted on the understanding that it will be exercised responsibly and considerately. Those who plead "hardship" following their umpteenth conviction need to be reminded that what is being handed down is a punishment, not just some kind of fee. I bet most of them would be outraged if a thief tried to get out of going to jail on the grounds that it would be a bit inconvenient and he wouldn't like it very much.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:


I just checked the law on this.
Basically no damage or anything stuck to the windscreen outside of a given size in 2 different zones.
Zone 1, this is a 250mm wide vertical area from the center of the steering wheel up to where the wipers stop. Nothing bigger than 10mm diameter is allowed in this area.
Zone 2 is the rest of the area the wipers sweep, nothing bigger than 40mm diameter is allowed here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/stickers-or-other-items-in-front...

In reply to FesteringSore:

Surely it can't be that hard - if you are looking away from the windscreen down at your phone when you are moving then you are risking others' lives. If you are caught doing this then you lose your licence for a year or two.

In reply to GrahamD:


KevinD corrected me on the other thread, but there are more than 8000 drivers with 12 or more points on their licence who are still allowed to drive. So that's quite a lot who are essentially evading justice.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=8000+drivers+12+points

In reply to FesteringSore:

first time caught using it while driving, 9 points and a thousand pound fine. 2nd time loss of licence regardless of the hardship or job loss it causes. it would almost eradicate it overnight.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


I'm saying that it's safer than trying to map read and drive at the same time, yes definitely. Also, I don't sit staring at the 'machine', I concentrate on the road. Of course I glance at the screen if I hear something I don't understand or expect, which is almost never, and it takes a split second, much less time than turning to a map on my lap (or holding it up and steering one handed), figuring out where I am, where I'm going, what turns to take etc. Even if someone is reading the map for you, they still need to try to explain where to go so still the same level of distraction or more than a sat nav, and they're way more likely to miss a turn or be indecisive and give a last second instruction. I've probably driven about 20,000 miles with my sat nav on and never has it caused me to even nearly crash.


If it's not safe to hear a voice when driving, then why doesn't every car on the motorway where a conversation is going on, crash and kill everyone in it?


Lol, the word of an expert is worth nothing without a google link on UKC. I'm afraid you'd need access to the TRL research library for definitive science on it.

Pity there isn't some sort of technology for immobilising the driver's phone - not the passengers' - when the engine is running.
Also, I think the distraction levels between mobiles and satnav is different. Unless you're a complete nob you shouldn't need to look at a satnav for any longer than it takes to look at a road sign and, let's face it, many road signs can be out of the driver's immediate field of vision requiring eye movement left, right or up.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:


Are you a bit short

I find that there are very few cars that allow me to view anything other than the bonnet through the lower portion of the windscreen.

In reply to GrahamD:

The DfT's RRCGB used to have some really good information about the Primary and Contributory causes of road traffic collisions. Less illuminating these days and I am very suspicious of the possibility of statistics being presented in a way that is more supportive of government policy rather than getting to the real causes. In other words let's hammer young drivers and speeders.

If we look back a few years the reports had more focus on causes and had a top ten primary causes. None of that now. Was it dark, what was the speed limit, how old was the driver and that's about the depth of it. We have gone back to a previous period when all professional judgements about the causes were dismissed as subjective. For subjective, read politically inconvenient.

Based on some of the good data from a few years ago, here are the key factors that I think need attention.

PRIMARY CAUSES
Not paying attention 37%
Poor judgements about hazards 19%
Exceeding the speed limit <5%

The figure for not paying attention (texting, changing the satnav/music, checking makeup, dropped cigarette, ...) was steadily rising year on year: and nobody gave a damn.

There was a Top Ten Causes table. Exceeding the speed limit never made it into the top ten, yet the government are all over it.


(As Hendon and Tulliallan prove hundreds of times a day, you can go as fast as you like and not be a danger if you are able to pay enough attention and make good enough judgements about road hazards.)

In reply to Jim Fraser:


More nuanced analysis requires more time. Time is money, so I suspect cutbacks will have influenced the quality of the analysis, although I'm not denying your political expediency theory...

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Speeding is a funny one because although it is rarely the primary cause, it contributes to both the liklihood of poor judgement and the severity of outcome. Because its an easy one to measure and prosecute for why not do it ? it doesn't use up resources for catching 'dangerous' or 'reckless' or drunk or distracted drivers.

In reply to GrahamD:


I've always found it difficult to maintain concentration when in a "reduced speed limit" stretch (of 40 or 50 mph) on the motorway - now eliminated thankfully due to having a new car with cruise control. It was the sheer boredom of going slowly for a distance which did it, not tiredness, not weather conditions, not traffic levels.

I would respectfully suggest that going slowly actually contributes more to a likelihood of poor judgement for the simple reason that those who do so are more likely to fall asleep at the wheel, or at the very least they do not worry about the likelihood of getting hurt in the event of an accident - something which is at the very forefront of my mind at speed (particularly when doing 60 on a motorbike).

I would also like to point out that the old tend to go very slowly, and the young tend to go faster.
The old have more influence on the Police and Government (indeed those toward the top in both are old), and the last thing they are going to do is admit that they are the prime group that cause accidents. Therefore whatever the young do must be bad in their eyes.

In reply to fred99:

We will have to beg to differ. Not being able to concentrate (because of lack of exhileration from speed ?) is a bad excuse for speeding whilst significantly reduceing reaction times (leading to poor judgement) is an obvious reason why speeding is bad.

In reply to Dax H:






The diameter criterion is for areas of damage. For stickers or other obstructions to vision the rule is that they must not "encroach" more than 10mm/40mm (that's the word used in the document linked above). I interpret that to mean that they mustn't extend more than the stated amount into the zone in question. But then that could mean that you could blank off a 40mm wide arc round the edge of zone 2 and still be legal. Hmm...

FWIW I believe that my car as it came from the factory may be illegal under these rules: the rear view mirror mount is glued to the inside of the windscreen within the area swept by the wipers, and I'm pretty sure it encroaches more than 40mm. Hmm again...

Back to the subject of the OP: A few days back I was driving round the Edinburgh City Bypass in moderately heavy traffic. Ahead of me was a pickup truck (one of those slightly ludicrously named Mitsubishi "Warriors", I think). It was drifting from one side to the other and back again in lane 2, then moved in to lane 1 when a gap appeared there. I was about to pass it when it suddenly lurched back in to lane 2 ahead of me, swerved a bit as if about to lose control as it passed a truck in lane 1, then dived precipitously left in front of the truck, hit the brakes and headed off down an exit slip road. I couldn't help noticing as I passed that the driver was holding a mobile phone to his right ear with his left hand (perhaps his right hand was occupied with that relaxing pastime that, at that moment, I judged to be his favourite).

In reply to captain paranoia:


56% of the current road death figure is over 950 lives per year. Plus thousands of life- changing injuries.

That's typically over £1bn cost to the state for the deaths and then add the incapacity benefit, insurance costs and losses of tax revenue. Hurting people is expensive.

In reply to GrahamD:




But 'Driving too fast for the conditions' was listed as a separate cause.

Again, not a big part of the overall picture. Not headline-grabbing either if it was people doing 15mph on black ice.

Because we have these 'partnerships' doing speed cameras, the road safety box is ticked and we don't need to do much else apparently.

Rumours are out there that the Lord Cottenham age of highly trained traffic officers is now drawing to a close as white hats get dished out to any numpty willing to wear one in some jurisdictions.

In reply to FesteringSore:

As a slight tangent anyone noticed a recent increase in the number of drivers pulled over taking calls, often stopped in inappropriate places with the engine still and warning lights somehow making it alright?

It's better than taking the call from the moving vehicle but isn't a stationary vehicle with its engine running still 'driving'?

In reply to Toccata:


It's been a quiet week for me so I have only done 500 ish miles so far.
I have not seen a single person talking to the police, only noticed one car pulled up with the driver on the phone.
Seen quite a few people driving holding their phones though but I can't photograph them doing it because that would mean me using my phone whilst driving.

In reply to FesteringSore:


There could be with a simple bit of software.
If phones automatically stop over say 10mph unless you activate passenger mode.
The phone would have to log the activation and deactivation times and if a driver was found to have activated passenger mode whilst at the wheel it's an instant ban, 10 million quid fine and rats down the front of their trousers.


Sat nav systems are an increase in safety in my opinion. I use one every day and have done for around 300k miles over the last 10 years.
Before the Sat nav I worked out my route using an A to Z of the local area, put directions on a note pad and set off. The main distraction was looking for road signs, peering at walls looking for the sign for Albert place or beach avenue. Is that the sign behind that overgrown hedge?
Damn its a bit dark and the signs are not illuminated.

These days it's a quick glance, ahh yes second right thank you.
I spend far less time looking at my sat nav than I do looking in my mirror's and checking my blind spot before turning.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


I agree; I wasn't condoning it.

"Jam tomorrow" is the approach, I'm afraid. Short-term, bottom-line expediency seen in both public and private affairs, rather than thinking about the long-term costs.

In reply to Toccata:
I'm convinced that a lot of goons think that, by switching on their hazard light, it's alright for them to stop on double yellow lines and otherwise flout a whole host of regulations.http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=651775&v=1#x8414666

I think it probably is.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I have no sympathy for anyone who is caught using a phone whilst driving but to digress a bit, another thing which annoys me is when news reporters do their bit to camera whilst driving. If ever there was a case for being done for driving without due care and attention......

In reply to timjones:

5ft 8 but I like to ride low

None the less, it'd still be classed as an MOT failure if you left an obstruction on the window.. though in all likelihood they'd probably just remove it as they did air fresheners from my rear view mirror before I realised what wrong I was doing!

In reply to mrphilipoldham:



They may remove it, but it would be utter bollocks to declare that it was dangerous if it wasn't obscuring the view of anything other then your own paintwork

In reply to timjones:

Did you read the above quoted link at all? Them's the rules.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:


The rules don't support your claim that it is dangerous to mount anything on the screen. Different vehicles and different driving positions will produce very different results.

In reply to timjones:

"Items place in, or stuck to, the windscreen could be stickers, pennants, satellite navigation monitors or decorations."

How on Earth does that not state that a sat nav should not be mounted on your windscreen? It doesn't say anything about blocking the view, it's a clear cut rule. If it exceeds 40mm in diameter in zone B then it's a no-no. It's nothing to do with driving positions.. that's why the MOT is a standard one size fits all test for all vehicles.

In reply to Toccata:



I have been hassled by coppers when I have pulled over to take a call. They seem to behave like they're on cocaine these days. There is no pleasing some of them. Come back Dixon of Dock Green.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:



I'm not talking about the MOT, my reply was directed at your absurd statement that anything on the screen is dangerous.

It's fecking obvious to anyone with any common sense that it's not a danger if the only thing that it obscures is the bonnet of your own vehicle.

In reply to timjones:

Well, according to the law.. it is, though we all know the law often isn't exactly common sense. According to the law, it's right up there with bald tyres and excessive fumes. I'm not disagreeing with you on the common sense front, but when so many people refer to the law and highway code on the subject of motoring I thought I'd join in. Funny how it applies in some, and not others.. eh?

In reply to mrphilipoldham:


Last time I checked neither bald tyres or emmsions were classed as an advisory?

In reply to timjones:
It'd only be listed as an advisory if the tester removed said item, just to let you know it's an issue. The fact it was there would be enough for a failure.

"Where items are present in the driver's view (such as a sat nav, air freshener etc) that would justify a Reason for Rejection, the tester may, at their discretion, remove the items prior to the inspection. This fact should be noted on an Advisory Notice."

In reply to GrahamD:

It's not a lack of exhilaration that sent me to sleep in the gatso speed restriction stretches, it was a combination of vehicles getting close together, the need to repeatedly look at the speedo due to some vehicles trying to "push" you from behind into breaking the limit just so they get there a few seconds quicker, and the lack of space either side with the worry of plonkers wavering about inside (and outside) their lanes.
All this means getting far more tired when concentrating.
When a restricted speed stretch is over 20 miles long, involving numerous junctions, this becomes dangerous.
I'd like to know why they can't work over shorter stretches at a time, and actually finish them, rather than locking up miles upon miles for 12-18 months at a time.

In reply to fred99:



Because having transverse joints across a tarmac pavement construction seriously limits its strength, so constructing widening (for example) bit by bit doesn't work very well, it has to be laid in long continuous layers.

Not to say all the earthworks, lighting etc couldn't be done bit by bit, but you'd have to put in odd sections of vehicle restraint as you moved those areas through the works, which would be pretty tricky and expensive. Given that a 50mph zone has negligible impact on overall journey times, better just to drop the limit for the whole lot for the duration of the works.