UKC

Give reasons if you want , but like=You agree with a life sentence for those who kill whilst driving and texting.

Dislike=If disagree with a life sentence for those who kill whilst driving and texting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/04/drivers-kill-mobile-phones-will-...

In reply to Jim C:

Dunno how that will work. Dangerous driving charges tend to lose out to careless driving ones. Why elevate one particular form of not paying attention above any others eg is texting really worse than driving into low sun and not slowing down?

In reply to Jim C:

Should be a life sentence just for texting.
Unless someone can come up with any 'good' reason to be texting while driving.

In reply to Jim C:

Are there precedents for a life sentence where the death was a result of wilful negligence?

In reply to Jim C:
Cause is irrelevant - there are umpteen reasons why people get hurt in car accidents.
Forget the cause - the effect is the only crucial factor - and all sentencing should be based on that regardless of whether the cause is putting on mascara, changing a CD, lighting a fag, driving badly, drink, drugs, a plethora of reasons can all have the same effect.

In reply to DaveHK:


Not possible as there is no law that allows it yet.
(Once the law is in place, then there is a possibility of a precedent being set. )

In reply to Jim C:
I think that's an absolutely stupid idea. It's a policy designed to appeal to people at a base emotional level, and which unravels as soon as even the most cursory analysis is applied.

An important fact about the world: We do not have infinite resources. This means that the resources we do have must be prioritised so that the most good is done, or the most harm avoided. Prison is very very expensive. A life sentence is very very very very expensive. So if you support this policy, you really need to think about who you're *not* going to put in jail. Violent criminals or rapists, perhaps? They could have their sentences reduced to make way for the texters.

Is there a shred of evidence that this would work as a deterrent? One would have to look back over similar policies to see their effects. A good guess would be that it would work for a few weeks while it was fresh in people's minds. Then, when it became absolutely obvious that this law was unenforceable because we don't have teams and teams of police reviewing in-car CCTV footage from everyone's private vehicle, then we'd all realise it was an empty threat.

Is the reason that people text while driving that when they evaluate the risk and consequences, they think, "well the consequences aren't that bad, so it's worth the risk"? And so, by making the consequences worse (the life sentence), that would tip the rational evaluation over to the side of not-worth-the-risk? The answer, by the way, is no, this is not what is going on here.

The way to stop people texting and driving is to constantly remind them of the consequences that *already* exist. They could kill someone, and that is plenty bad enough already for a rational evaluation. People ignore that and don't bother to make the evaluation, so they need reminding. With TV ads, radio, posters, internet, phones, etc, until they stop doing it (well, indefinitely).

In the tragic cases where someone ignores the risk and it is realised, the legal system should be used to look at the case and act accordingly.

This policy is the government tapping into people's base emotional reactions to gain political capital. Those who fall for it are gullible, and I'm afraid, stupid.

In reply to Jim C:

Life sentence for stupidity and self indulgence? Don't think so. But should absolutely never get to,drive again.

In reply to Jon Stewart
The way to stop most mobile phone use while driving is to enforce the law.
Why the police don't I have no idea.
It's hardly difficult to catch users, just stand on any street corner and they'll come to you.
If the punishment isn't severe enough to stop most people then increase the punishment.
Driving and texting is mental.

In reply to Jim C:
If someone really needs to text, it's generally not a bother to wait and find somewhere to pull over. Even on a motorway, there are regular junctions / service stations.

If someone accidentally kills another person outside of a car, there is a whole different structure to how they are charged and life is a possibility, so why should accidentally killing somebody with a car be any different?

Edit - by the way, I'm not saying that killing whilst texting should automatically be a life sentence. I'm saying that I think that all deaths involving cars should have the possibility of a life sentence depending on the individual circumstances.

In reply to Jim C:

The headline should read as follows.

FASCIST AUTHORITARIANS CONSPIRE TO MAXIMISE NATIONAL DEBT.

Those Tories are at it again. An example of how NOT to run a country. They make the same mistake every time. They talk small government but their authoritarianism involves the state in ridiculous expense and costs us huge amounts of money for no result.

In a society like ours, someone who has caused a road death while driving will often become one of the people least likely to cause a road death in the future. There is almost nothing to gain and a huge amount to lose by introducing disproportionate punishment. This is a fascist reactionary proposal that can only push costs to astronomical levels and cannot possibly have any effect on driver behaviour. This is a country where we have one of the lowest road death rates in the world and where nearly all road users are nice to each other. There is no marauding horde of killers out there on British roads.

This is symptomatic of a government that has completely lost its way. Austerity is eating into the traditional British way of road policing by training officers to world-class standards and sending them out to help motorists drive more safely. It is in the early stages of being rotted and dismantled by the bean counters . The road death figures have flattened out and the government has no idea how to make further improvements in road safety and so is lashing out.

If you hand out a life sentence to a 17 year old driver who has caused a road death then in addition to the loss of a life and million or two in initial state expenses, it will cost £40k pa for prison and probably still £40k pa after prison if you count benefit payments and loss of tax revenue for this unemployable person: another two million pounds across their lifetime.

In reply to Jim C:

Life ban from driving, certainly.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Which country is this? It's not the Britain I recognise; I'd ban about 25% of British drivers as being mentally or temperamentally unfit to drive on public roads.

In reply to colinakmc:

Great idea. Driving is a privilege, give them a lift time driving ban

In reply to Jim C:

No one texts by accident, so it's not in the same category as a lapse. It is a calculated and deliberate act. Everybody knows that it is illegal to text whilst driving. Everybody knows that it can cause a lapse of concentration which can lead to a crash, which could be fatal. People who continue to flout this law should be dealt with with the utmost severity. If you kill someone as a result of such a deliberate action then you should pay it with a very severe punishment and if that means a long prison sentence so be it. Some have posted about "disproportionate" sentences. How "disproportionate" is taking someone else's life and the utter devastation and misery that causes to their family and loved ones? The impact on the victims' families is even more poignant when they learn that the perpetrator chose to deliberately ignore all the evidence and warnings about the use of cell phones whilst driving? It is a wilful act of selfishness with a contemptuous disregard to the safety of others.

I do agree that there needs to be much tougher policing of our roads which means more traffic police and a wider use of cameras, the intention being to catch and punish the perpetrators BEFORE they kill someone. Like drink driving the punishment when caught texting should be a minimum of one years loss of licence for a first offence, and lifetime ban for a subsequent offence. A more draconian approach to other dangerous driving such as tailgating and lne hogging also needs to be enforced.

Better policing will be expensive but on the figures you quote may be cheaper in the long run than locking killers up for life, as a preemptive approach would reduce the likelihood of a killer still being on the road.

In reply to Jim C:
>

It's an interesting one - the act that is bad is texting while driving - you might be lucky and not kill someone, you might be unlucky and kill someone - the outcome is somewhat out of your control because you aren't paying attention to the road while doing it, so whether someone else ends up in your path and there is a collision is not in your control. So morally the punishment should be the same either way? Arguably along the same lines attempted murder should carry the same penalty as murder, as it was only through blind luck or incompetence that the person didn't die. Similarly the act of placing a bomb should arguably get the same punishment as a "successful" terrorist attack, as the intent was the same.

The law often punishes consequences more than acts, though. It'd be a big shift to switch it to punishing actions based on intent[1] rather than outcome.

[1] I know most laws require intent *and* outcome to prosecute - murder requires the intent to take life or the reasonable expectation that it would, theft requires the intent to permanently deprive. But this would be different - simply taking an action that if successful would result in the outcome with the intent of that outcome would be enough to prosecute as if it had been successful? As an example, if you shoot someone with a firearm it is probably reasonable to conclude that you intended to kill them.

In reply to Jimbo C:


As I read this (not very well written) Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law#Death_by_dangerou... manslaughter - with a possible life sentence on conviction - is an optional charge in the more serious cases. I've never heard of it happening (but then IANAL). (Even Gary Hart, who killed ten people and injured 82 others when he fell asleep at the wheel, allowing his vehicle to crash on the East Coast Main Line, causing a major train crash, was only done for causing death by dangerous driving. He received a five year sentence and served half of it.)

I do find it strange that the law appears to enshrine such a significantly lower standard of expected behaviour for persons behind the wheel of a motor vehicle compared to virtually any other activity.

As to why the police don't enforce the law, as asked further up in this thread, the answer is, I think, fairly simple: the police, just like every other public service, have been systematically and progressively starved of funds ever since the post war consensus was dismantled in the 1970s/1980s. They now can't afford the manpower to do it. Until someone comes up with a hi-tech way to detect the offence which removes the need for people to be out there doing the job, we are where the population as whole (as determined though its exercise of its democratic rights & duties) seems to want us to be. (If someone did invent such a device, of course, it would immediately be railed against in the populist bottom feeding media as "another weapon in the war on motorists".)

In reply to Trangia:

Yes.

And its not a mandatory life sentence being proposed; just that the maximum sentence be increased from 14 years to life. Life of course not being a whole life sentence either, so the tariff could well be considerably shorter.

Which merely brings causing death due to gross negligence while driving into line with causing death by gross negligence in any other field. Judges will no longer have their hands tied and forced to give shorter sentences than a similar severity of offence not involving a motor vehicle.

In reply to KevinD:

Texting whilst driving is far beyond careless driving. Surely careless driving usually implies a momentary or short term lapse of concentration whereas the act of texting involves a certain amount of forethought about one's intention to text and thus deliberately allow oneself to potentially lose control of the vehicle.

In reply to Jim Fraser:




Absolutely. It will be cattle trucks rounding up drivers next, you mark my words.

In reply to Jim C:
Giving a life sentence to someone who kills in this way does nothing to make good the damage and loss caused. It can only do any good as a deterrent to others. In that respect I wonder if a possible life sentence is much more of a deterrent than say 5 years. The aim of policy in this area should be to change behaviour. This could be achieved by a number of means, but one of the most cost-effective could be a massive campaign through TV adverts which pull absolutely no punches and show footage of actual incidents, interviews with victims and relatives. If I remember correctly it was via such means that a significant change in the acceptability of driving while drunk was achieved. Today we expect government or other authorities to "ensure this can never happen again". Well, it will. Our aim should be continual reduction - there is no magic bullet.

In reply to Jim C:

It is a stupid idea designed to appeal to emotions, if they actually do it public opinion will turn round the first time they give a life sentence to someone like a mum replying to a text from her sick baby's nursery.

We should reserve life sentences for acts where there is an extreme degree of malice and a dangerous individual needs to be removed from society indefinitely.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
There is no excuse for texting while driving.
If you don't want a lengthy sentence then don't text.
Public opinion will not support short sentences for those who kill while driving.
We need tough sentences and tough sentencing.

In reply to Neil Williams:


And also punishes based on the concept of free will. That the person who committed the act could have chosen to do otherwise.

In reply to Jim Fraser:








you are an absolute idiot. its not a disproportionate punishment. once again just rambling pish. nothing unusual for you.

People these days dont know the dangers they put people in when getting behind the wheel. and then to go on and do things like texting, which are proven to be as bad if not worse than drink driving.

maybe when you have scooped someone out of a wreckage that was texting and driving, or scraped up the innocent victim that was smeared across the tarmac from someone distracted by texting, then you will realise how backwards and stupid your comment is.


if you actively get behind the wheel and pick up your phone, you are making a concious effort to reduce your level of concentration. just like drinking and driving. it doesnt matter who you think you are, how special you think you are, or if you wont think it will happen to you. your actions have consequences.

the threat of life imprisonment is correct and just, a car is a weapon, and can be used as such and should be treated as such. people are too lax and to blas£ about driving. its about time we got some harsh punishment. i just hope they adhere to it.

In reply to baron:

Of course there are excuses for texting when driving. What if you are stuck in a traffic jam and you are late to pick up your kid from school and don't want them to worry. Almost zero chance of an accident because the traffic isn't moving anyway and a good reason for texting.


That argument that would justify almost any draconian law. "If you don't want your hands chopped off don't shoplift".


When the news is full of a story about a pretty unsympathetic lorry driver killing a young family it won't. If the news was about a young mum worried about her baby accidentally killing a drunk person that walked in front of her car while she was texting it would. Sentencing policy needs to be rational and justifiable and not based on an emotional reaction to the last story to hit the press.


Putting someone in jail is a massive cost for society. It makes that person economically unproductive, damages their whole family and costs a fortune. We need sensible and appropriate sentences which reserve the use of prison for people that actually pose a danger to society or have shown themselves incapable of being reformed by less severe sanctions.

In reply to Jim C:

I don't like blanket rules like that. I prefer to leave it to courts to decide punishment.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
There is no excuse for texting while driving.
None.
Not ever.
Except, of course, that someone always finds an excuse.
Fine.
I'll agree that texting can be OK sometimes if you'll agree that I can, on occasion, drink and drive.

In reply to FesteringSore:


As would driving into blinding low sun.

Dont get me wrong. I dont disagree with you but there does seem a distinct lack of will to use dangerous driving charges compared to careless driving. I dont see upping the prison sentence on the former as likely to do anything other than increase the probability of the lesser charge being used.

In reply to baron:


Of course it is potentially morally acceptable to drink and drive. Suppose you lived somewhere fairly remote and you'd had a small amount of alcohol with dinner and an hour later your partner started to show symptoms of a heart attack. Would you drive them to hospital and save an hour getting there compared with waiting for help? Or would you put staying within the letter of the law above a relative's health.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Not an excuse to text. Programme your kids' phones/school into your handsfree and call.

In reply to Robyn Vacher:


If you have a hands free. If you very rarely need to use the phone in the car you probably don't.

In reply to abseil:


I'm not sure on this myself (thats whay I posted to get opionions)

However, I suppose that it is for the courts to decide is what this is about, at the moment it apppears the courts don't have a LS as an option, so they can't decide to give a LS even if the facts of the specific case would have justified it.

I don't think it would ever be in any way a manadatory LS, just an option in the rarest of the worst cases.

In reply to baron:



You're a lone female being followed by gangsters?

In reply to Dave the Rave:

or rampaging elephants. or dinosaurs, even...

In reply to baron:





Do you honestly think people now will be thinking:

"Damn, i really want to send a text, but i better not because if i kill somebody i get life in jail. If only it was like before when i would only get 5 years for killing somebody... Health and safety gone mad, i tell ya!"

It may be just me, but of the 2+1 outcomes above, the biggest deterrent is "kill somebody". Whatever the sentence coming after is irrelevant for the grand majority of the population when it comes to the decision of texting or not, since they really believe they won't be killing anyone with their actions, which is why they actually do them. Once the "deed" is done the punishment serves no purpose.

ETA: To explain the above a bit better.

For a 'punishment' to work as a deterrent it has to be a direct response to an action. I.e. If you rob a bank you get life in jail, so if you decide to rob a bank there's a direct decision to do something that carries a sentence.

If the situation was that if you get caught texting you get life in jail, that is a direct effective deterrent. However in the form it takes in this case it is not useful as such.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Well there's certainly a proportion that fit that bill. Whether it's 25% is hard to say....BUT, compared with anywhere else I've lived and worked, British driving standards are high (itself a scary thought!).

Recent stints in Kuwait, Russia, UAE, Egypt and Albania may have coloured my views somewhat, however

In reply to Mr Lopez:
Except most people don't think they'll have an accident.
So they text.
Then someone dies.
Then they're sorry.
I don't text and drive.
Mostly because I find it difficult to text sat on a chair in my house (generational thing).
If I was a younger person I'd be belting out those texts no matter where I was or what I was doing - gotta use those 5000 free texts!
Just like seat belts, drink driving, smoking , people need to see that they will be punished financially or with a loss of liberty or driving privileges. Hoping that the threat of killing someone might act as a deterrent will work for some people but not all (most?).

In reply to Mr Lopez:

it's not just you, but sadly not everyone is like you

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

the judicial system needs to take into account that a proportion of those that come within its scope will have, at best, a wanton disregard for the consequences of their actions.

as i pointed out above- the change is to increase the maximum term from 14 years to life. not really such a big deal, and irons out the discrepancy that gross negligence in charge of a motor vehicle was restricted in the tariff it could get compared to a similar level of negligence in any other sphere of activity

In reply to baron:


Texting while stuck for a lengthy time stationary in a traffic jam is about on a par with having a beer while dossing overnight in a car in a layby. Neither poses any risk to anybody. I happily admit to having done both. I get the impression that some people on here would have me jailed for life for one or the other or both.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Do you think if at the time that happened a mandatory sentence of life in jail would have stopped him doing what he did? What purpose does it serve to sentence him to life in jail?

ETA


Uh, i thought i read it would be a mandatory life sentence, rather than simply opening up the ceiling of what the judges can dole out. Don't mind me then

In reply to baron:


Exactly


Then getting a life sentence instead of 14 years will have even less use as a deterrent for those. Won't it?

In reply to Robert Durran:
You can probably sit in a traffic jam or layby and do most anything, leagal or not, without causing an accident except maybe to yourself.
If common sense and respect for others was more available to more people there wouldn't need to be a law for most things.
Until we reach that position I think you should put your phone on hands free while driving and continue to drink as much as you want while not driving.
You certainly won't get any grief from me and hopefully not from any sensible person.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


Don't be ridiculous. The same penalty for deliberately mowing down and killing a pedestrian as a momentary lapse of concentration resulting in a freak accident in which somebody dies?

In reply to Jim C:

Hit them where it really hurts:

Confiscation & destruction of phone.

In reply to Robert Durran:


It's still a bad habit to get into because you don't know how long the hold up is going to last and if the traffic starts to move how many people will be tempted to "just finish it quickly"? Or take a peep at the response when they are moving? Or risk a quick text when stopped at traffic lights? I understand what you are saying, but the law needs to be firm and unambiguous. No use of hand held phones whilst you are a driver in charge of a vehicle means exactly that.

In reply to baron:


Except that using a phone hands-free has been shown to cause significant distraction to the driver and make accidents more likely. Drivers think about the conversation and pay less attention to the road. It may be socially acceptable and legal in the UK but that doesn't make it safe. My guess is using a hands free while moving at speed is significantly less safe than texting when stopped in traffic.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Almost all modern phones have a speaker which is just about good enough to make a call in a car without a proper handsfree system. Phone cradles cost a tenner. I can't see why anyone wouldn't have one - they aren't just good for use of the phone, they are good for use as satnav etc.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I would agree with that, and TBH I don't agree with a ban on using a handheld mobile phone in any form if your car is stationary with the handbrake on, regardless of the reason why it is stationary with the handbrake on. I don't agree with the need to switch off the engine. If I stop in a layby to make a call, how is it safer if I turn the engine off, provided the car is not in gear and the handbrake is on?

If in traffic the distraction causes you to start moving a little more slowly, that's just an annoyance to other drivers, not a significant safety hazard.

I do however agree that it should be banned while the car is moving and with strict penalties, though I do think those penalties should be based on the act and not the consequence. (Similarly, general dangerous driving should be penalised heavily whether it causes death or not - it was still dangerous driving, and it still *could* have killed someone).

In reply to Trangia:


You see this all the time in city traffic these days. Someone in the queue at the lights doesn't respond when the traffic starts moving: they're usually half way through sending a text or reading an e-mail, as becomes obvious when they clearly put 'something' down on the empty front passenger seat before finally moving.

In reply to Trangia:

If that's considered dangerous, then so's using a satnav and that too should be banned.


A text while stationary at traffic lights does not pose a hazard provided you do not release the handbrake until you have completed it. It is inconsiderate to other drivers and would cause delay, but a life sentence for being inconsiderate to other drivers is rather too much - a fine and 3 points would be quite sufficient if not excessive for such an act - and there are far worse acts of inconsideration than that that go unpunished all the time.

Actually, all it is is causing an obstruction. That does have a penalty and that is the only penalty that makes sense for it. The phone is totally incidental.


No use of hand held phones in a moving vehicle is just as clear-cut and is more proportionate to actual risk.

In reply to Martin W:

Which is inconsiderate, but not unduly dangerous.

In reply to Jim C:
Another thought...will Siri and the likes, as they improve, completely remove this risk anyway? Why would you type a text message if you could dictate it? And why read it if it can be read to you? In that situation, it's actually safer than a hands-free call, because you can always ask Siri to read it again, and there won't be the same expectation of an immediate answer as there is with a telephone call.

In reply to Neil Williams:

You are introducing lots of "what ifs?" You can always dig up examples that fly in the face of any law, but overall laws need to be clear and unambiguous and are made for a reason. As no more scotch eggs has already pointed out the proposed increase to a life sentence is not intended to be mandatory it just gives the courts more scope for increased sentences in the worst cases.

At the end of the day why is the use of mobiles/texting whilst driving considered to be so sacrosanct? What is the problem with everyone accepting that you can't use one when driving? And "driving" means the whole spectrum from bombing along a road at 60 mph to waiting at lights. How would you legislate for being stopped in traffic? 2 minutes without moving? 5 mins? At what stage do you break the law? Not moving off soon enough when using the phone? Too soon?

Why can't people just pull over, and stop safely if they want to use the phone? Otherwise just leave the phone switched off? Is that really such a big deal? Is it really such an essential part of life?

In reply to Neil Williams:


It is inconsiderate to other drivers and would cause delay, but a life sentence for being inconsiderate to other drivers is rather too much


do people on this thread actually think that what's being proposed is a mandatory life sentence for this offense? Some of the responses seem to suggest that, and it would go some way to explaining the reaction to what otherwise seems a pretty minor change in sentencing guidance....

In reply to Trangia:

There's not much of a what-if involved in having a phone in your hand while a vehicle is moving, is there?

(Texting on a phone in a cradle is the much woolier "dangerous driving" offence, or "causing death by dangerous driving" - it is not specifically illegal even if it is dangerous - legal precedent has taken "hand held phone" to be "phone that is being held in your hand at the time of the offence", not "phone that could be held in your hand but in fact isn't being so". In reality it would probably make sense to change that law to "using a portable electronic device except where control and use is solely by means of voice" - though hitting the "next track" button on the radio requires very little attention and probably doesn't deserve banning).


Not moving off soon enough is inconsiderate more than dangerous. And as I said there are laws about causing an obstruction, which can be used instead of laws relating to phones. The situation would not differ from that if you were fiddling with the radio or reading a map, therefore there is in my eyes no sense in different legislation nor penalties.


Because I oppose banning things (with heavy punishment) that aren't dangerous. Using a mobile phone while driving a vehicle is dangerous. If the vehicle isn't moving, it's not dangerous, just an obstruction. Therefore to me, the former should be severely punished, while the latter just needs a bit of a "don't be a prat" talk and a punishment no heftier than a fine you'd get for parking in a stupid place.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think you have missed the whole point of the proposed legislation - see no more scotch egg's latest post.

In reply to Trangia:


Fair enough.

In reply to Jim C:

It doesn't just say texting, 'using'

Does that include handless phone calls, or using satnav on your phone, music?

If so I don't think it's a good idea to lock maybe 50% population up for life

In reply to trouserburp:
As a couple of people have correctly pointed out, it's a change to the sentencing criteria for the offence of "causing death by dangerous driving", which is not a very specific offence (with regard to the latter part) anyway.

The specific offence of using a handheld mobile phone applies only if the device is a mobile phone (if I recall correctly, it doesn't for instance apply to CB radios) and if it is being held in the user's hand at the time of use (not, for instance, if it's in a cradle, even if texting on a phone in a cradle is just as dangerous).

In reply to trouserburp:

no, indeed, it wouldn't be.

In reply to Jim C:

I dont have a simple view. I prefer harmonised sentencing but really don't like politicised changes in the face of a seriously declining funding for actual police officers on the road. In the end there are numerous significant risks on our road that remain largely unpoliced pre-accident. Some (usually old) folk who are not capable of passing a test and should not be driving (and those who are aware and who conspire with them). Drug users legal and illegal where it affects driving. Tired drivers. Driving way too fast for the road conditions. Other in-car distractions... very load music, flaming arguments, picking up something dropped in the foot well etc. Road blockers and gap closers who hapilly risk others lives acting as proxy police. Research has even shown 'benign' sounding stuff like changing music channels , hands free sets, and satnavs all increase risk when driving. The only sensible way to deal with this is for the police to stop and question when they witness dangerous practice. We need more police on the road not less. We need more places to stop and do stuff safely. We need the public to question their friends and family behaviour. We also seem to lack proportionality and awareness or real risk and need better public information. In the meantime speed brings in revenue and alcohol and mobiles are more easily evidenced post crash ... they get all the headlines.

Back in the 80s a friend of mine was killed on a pavement on the opposite side of the road by a drunk driver way over the limit who didnt stop but sped home and lied to try and cover it up (but luckily the evidence was clear what he had done) and yet he ended up with a non-custodial sentence. Now we have Fail readers in a slather about jailing people for just using a mobile. Jail is for people who wilfully risked lives and ended up killing someone as a result. Is that so hard to get right? I'm on the side of avoiding a life sentance unless unusually excessive multiple stupidy and deceit was shown as I don't see the punishment either being proportionate or useful to society (even having lost a friend this way) but I'd hope that judges would behave sensibly in this respect.

In reply to Offwidth:


Actually what we need is more automation and the politicians would be better off thinking about how to regulate to accelerate the pace of technology adoption than tinkering with punishments.

The accident where the guy on the phone crashed his lorry into a car is a classic example. Driving straight at another car like that should result in the computer taking over and braking or changing lane to prevent a collision.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Sure automation can do that but its not legal as yet. Im just pointing out how the differences in distraction get treated right now and how currently we do need more police to deal with people obviously driving badly. I'm happy with the idea of automated vehicles. As another anecdote, my wife was knocked off her bike last year by a woman trying to leave a queue without checking her mirrors, due to being distracted in a car of screaming kids. Not even the faintest whiff of a possible prosecution. If she had been drunk or on a mobile she would have been prosecuted.

In reply to Offwidth:
I wouldn't disagree with the need for more police but it would also help if the police we do have were more active and robust in dealing with things that they see (or don't see) as they drive around.
Courts need to impose sentences, not necessarily custodial ones, that will actually affect the offenders.
My brother was banned from driving after a series of driving offences some of which included not having a licence and heavily fined for not paying previous fines.
As you can imagine he wasn't bothered by his 'punishments' and it certainly didn't stop him driving (mostly other people's cars and without their consent).

In reply to Jim C:

If there was a referendum on that question the electorate quite possibly could be talked into voting Yes. That would cost the country a fortune and as far as I'm aware there is no evidence that it would reduce the incident rate.

On the other hand, if you were to ask people "Do you want to keep paying £x per week in extra taxes to keep people in prison who have already been there for 10, 20 or 30 years after sending a text while driving when they were much younger?", you'd likely see a very different outcome.

Emotive responses are easy to play on but they provide a very poor basis for policy making.

In reply to the thread:


people still seem to be responding as if the proposal was that people texting when driving will receive a mandatory life sentence

when as far as i can see. its actually that the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving when use of a mobile device was a contributory factor be increased to life, from 14 years which it is at present.

that's the maximum sentence- for the most extreme cases- and even the lorry driver that ploughed into standing traffic killing a family didn't get the maximum sentence under the existing regime, so its unclear to me what sort of situation would lead to it being used.

it might however give judges more leeway to give somewhat longer sentences for 'moderate' offenses- which could bring sentencing more into line with public expectations

In reply to john arran:




Nobody is suggesting people go to jail for texting, they are suggesting that people who text and as a result kill somebody in an accident should be imprisoned. Keep to the facts.
The whole Road Traffic Act punishment is based on consequences of accidents, not the level of criminality, but this happened because of the outcry after people who killed others in accidents were being fined £50 and given 3 points.
The law was then changed to define dangerous driving away from the criminal acts so consequences were reflected.
It can be a matter of good or bad luck wither you kill somebody in a crash, e.g. you knock a cyclist off and he walks away ,or you knock one off and they land on their head and die. That's why motoring offences need to be dealt with in this way reflecting consequences or people will just say, sorry mate killed your brother/sister but I was only texting so that means it was just a little mistake, so f==ck off and don't bother me about it.
I met, and still meet a lot of people who have had their relatives taken to the morgue in a black plastic bags after a crash, doesn't make any difference to their grief if the relatives were stabbed to death or killed by some dick texting and driving. Making the sentence stiffer sends a message out, don't do it.

In reply to Jim 1003:


So you'd be flippant if you killed somebody through negligence, just because the law didn't punish you severely?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



Really public expectations ? or what the media present as such ? at the end of the day sentenceing should not be about a popularity contest but as a fair deterrent. 10 years locked up for a 20 or 30 year old pretty much re-writes their lives in any case. Why would you want more ? I can't see elevating texting to the level of serial murder particularly helpful.

In reply to GrahamD:

the reality appears to be far less though, graham. i heard an interview with a woman whose child had been killed when a texting driver mounted the pavement and struck them. Seven year sentence; out in 3.5. I'm far from a member of the hang'em and flog'em brigade; indeed, i'm a fully paid up member of Bootrock's special snowflake crew. But even i don't think that's a suitable sentence for the loss of a child's life due to the selfishness of others

there will be a range of views, but sentencing does have to take account of public opinion, or confidence in the judicial system will be undermined. i think that instances like that do have an impact on people's views; and again, the purpose of increasing the maximum sentence to life doesnt seem to me to be so that lots of people can be given that sentence; its to offer scope for longer, but sub-life, sentences for 'moderately serious' cases (if there can be such a thing where a life is lost)

In reply to GrahamD:


What about the impact on the life of the person they've just taken, and everyone who knew them? As a cyclist, the flippant attitudes of those that have nearly just killed me drives me wild.

Careless cars are lethal to other road users and pedestrians, what other dangerous jobs are there that you can do while sending a text?

"Sorry your house burnt down, but I was writing a text while I rewired it, so I shouldn't be held fully responsible."

I don't support this though, there are loads of distractions other than mobile use that should be banned with similar penalty for failure to comply.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Without seeing what the national average is its hard to say how appropriately sentenceing is being performed. The media will obviously pick interviews with people who have a gripe with the current system and these may not be typical cases.

In terms of sentenceing and public opinion, I don't think motorists actually want sentences for motoring offences to be harsher, do they ? As with all things there is a balance to be struck but it has to be done impassionately.

In reply to jonnie3430:


It is a tragedy, just like any other premature loss of life. But the sentence is not about the bereaved getting revenge on the perpetrator.

As a country we have to decide how to treat ALL dangerous and careless driving offences - strikes me that we pretty much view driving as practically a right and we do take a relaxed attitude to policing and sentenceing. But I don't see that increasing a maximum sentence to life is particularly an effective deterrent. More enforcement of the more minor offences is likely to be more effective (but everyone likes to speed or park on a double yellow so noone will vote for paying for that)

In reply to GrahamD:


I suspect it is partly about that. But ideally I don't think it should be.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Agreed, that is why I don't think the victim of an offence should have any part in sentencing, only in providing evidence to find if the alleged perpetrator is guilty or not.

Sentencing should be by an expert (judge) based on the best approach to the balance between deterrence to others and rehabilitation. Never for revenge.

In reply to Bootrock:
Try to get a grip on how humans actually behave.

When the phone is ringing, nobody is thinking about life imprisonment. It is that simple. No far-off barely-connected threat is of any use when a valuable customer might be calling or a nagging wife is on the line. However, if you continue to train and deploy highly-trained road policing officers, and there is a continuous threat that one of them will be observing your dangerous behaviour, then that is a really good way of dealing with it.

You have to get a grasp of how expensive it is to implement draconian punishments and lock people up for years. Once you are faced with that expense you can no longer afford effective road safety measures, decent roads and proper enforcement. It is far far cheaper and more effective to have a bunch of 'Dickson of Dock Greens' in white caps letting people know where they are going wrong, or in the some cases issuing proportionate penalties. That latter scenario is where we used to be and it is being dismantled by authoritarian idiots.

In reply to Jim 1003:
culpability has to be the key to punishment. If you do something highly culpable that could or does result in death you should suffer very serious consequences whether or not you actually do cause death

If you are not culpable but death results the law has to show compassion

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
"only texting" while driving is not a little mistake. It's on a par with planning to go drinking and, while still sober, planning to drive back with a skinful. As far as I'm concerned that is about as culpable as you can get bar actually planning to kill someone

In reply to captain paranoia:


There is no other reasonable explanation for how safe British roads, and the roads of some neighbouring countries, are but that we are nice to each other.

I have driven in about eight countries and been a passenger on the roads of many more, some of which are really crazy. I conclude that the British and Irish have something special in our social behaviour that stops us killing each other just to get to home on time.


(Still room for improvement!)

In reply to wercat:


I wasn't trying to categorise or rank texting while driving, it is what it is, i.e. texting while driving, which can lead to severe consequences, but a lot of people don't think it will so they think they can get away with it.

In reply to GrahamD:


Or is the sentence a clear sign of the seriousness of the crime? I'd rather people thought that they will not distract themselves from the road because they could face life imprisonment of they do.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Yes, sorry, I suppose my comments were really for general consumption and not meant to imply anything about your own opinion

In reply to Jim Fraser:


yea exactly. people are stupid.


You are in charge of a car. a car is and can be a weapon. If your phone rings, you shouldnt think about life imprisonment. you should continue thinking to the road and your driving.

and if you did think you could get away with it, then the threat of life imprisonment should he enough to make you think twice. actually the yhought you could kill someone or give someone life changing injuries shouod be enough.

people are stupid. pick up your phobe while driving, thats a fine and points. you kill someone while wctively and conciously picking up your phone, regardless of texting, phone or fwcebook or whayever latest app, thats culpable homicide. you have put yourself in a position to reduce your concentration and got someone killed.

no different to a truck driving that did it recently and killed a family.

so once again you regressive left liberals want to take peoples responsibility away and hand it to the government? what were saying about fscist abd government control? its you liberals sleep walking us into a governmental dependant generation of people unable to take responsibility for theirnactions.

you text and drive and kill someone? then you get punishment.


by your logic, we shoildnt arrest people with knives.


no. people are idiots and have the "wont happen to me" mentality. you alreadybhave police officers dealing withnpeople and they still keep doing it.

In reply to Bootrock:


I carry a knife nearly all the time, some times several - I have not been arrested in the past 25 years - should I have been?

In reply to GrahamD:


It isn't revenge, it's justice.

There is a difference.

In reply to wercat:
Unfortunately culpability is not reflected in the offences of driving offences relating to dangerous driving, it is about the consequences of the driving. We tried the other way up until 1994 when causing death by dangerous driving was brought in because manslaughter didn't work and 3 points and a fine was not found generally acceptable punishment for drivers who kill.
I dealt with a lot of such drivers who caused deaths back in the day and felt sorry for some, however I felt sorrier for the victims. I dealt with one in particular who killed somebody and he got 3 years. His daughter was in my son's class in school and I felt sorry for her as it affected her very badly, and even after her father was released she never really got back to normal, and I think it was the reason she went off the rails for a while. Pleased to say eventually she did get her life back on track.

In reply to jonnie3430:


I doubt it. If 10 or 14 years of your life lost isn't a deterrent, then the problem is one of not understanding the risks and consequences. I'm sure most people would not drive and text if they thought there was a good chance they would lose their licence, let alone a sizeable portion of their life.

In reply to Trangia:



There is indeed. Justice should not be subject to populist demands just because one particular offence is a media hot topic right now.

In reply to Jim C:
Disliked.

If we want to improve road safety, the one way to do it would be to crack down on poor and dangerous driving before it results in a collision/injury/death. Possible life sentences are not a deterrent because nobody thinks they're going to kill anybody. But if being caught texting while driving resulted in an immediate 3 points and a £100 fine, and the police made an effort to actually police this, there'd be an immediate improvement in standards.

Of course this would require a change in attitudes across many police forces to take dangerous driving seriously.

That said, I think the maximum sentences for driving offences should increase so that judges have more space to put lethally bad and unrepentant drivers away for a good long time. See for example the tragic case of Lee Martin, whose killer Christopher Gard had been caught using his phone while driving on 8 previous occasions, avoiding a ban by pleading "exceptional hardship", and who is even now appealing to get his sentence reduced.

As the West Midlands Police recognise:
"Once drivers become aware that an infringement involving a cyclist is one they should expect to be prosecuted for, they suddenly become more aware of them on the road and in turn start giving them the time and space they should lawfully have as an equal road user."
https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2016/09/09/junction-malfunction-and-a-new-...

(I'm not trying to make this about cycling, it just illustrates my point that the way to effect change is through cracking down on regular everyday dangerous driving, not sending the worst offenders to prison for life)

In reply to Jim 1003:


Neither was I. If you read what I said more carefully it should be clear that we're talking about people who have sent a text and been sent down for life afterwards, and with reference to the thread title I'm amazed anyone could have misinterpreted that, but I apologise if I left room for misinterpretation. In any case, the point made is that everyone will be paying indefinitely to keep those people in prison, and I strongly suspect opinions would change if the cost benefit deal were to be explained properly rather than simply voting on an emotional response.


Mandatory sentencing that severe would be a draconian and hugely expensive message to send, and the evidence suggests that such message will be unlikely to be heard anyway; it would serve to make family of victims feel marginally less shit about the whole affair but achieve precious little else. There must be a better way - probably through better prevention either by education and/or by enforcement prior to incidents occurring.

In reply to Robyn Vacher:


I think I can tell my phone to send a text , I guess most smart phones can do the same ?

In reply to Bootrock:

You have clearly fallen victim to scare-politics. Cars are weapons, knives are weapons, phones are weapons, ...

This is crazy stuff. Chill.

Draconian measures will have a very limited effect on the use of phones while driving. Better laybys, motorway rest halts, insurance measures, better road policing, improved car-phone integration and clear sensible public information campaigns will change things.

We also need some clear legislative measures to define what the problem is. For instance, a person using a phone when a vehicle is stationary and the handbrake is applied is not a problem. It is quite possible that the position of the vehicle might cause an obstruction or some other offence but when somebody has taken the care to wait until they are stopped and have applied the handbrake before using the phone then the use of the phone is not the problem.

In reply to GrahamD:

I'm surprised this video hadn't popped up yet; youtube.com/watch?v=E9swS1Vl6Ok&

It's a crash survivor talking about how texting and driving changed her life. It raised public awareness for a while and emphasised the responsibility of a driver to pay attention. Changing the sentence would do the same. It'd also change the attitudes of those that think that it's okay to get caught more than once, a driver recently hit someone after being caught on the phone twice before, but the penalty didn't discourage.

In reply to jonnie3430:


I'd rather people thought that they should pay attention to their driving because they might kill someone if they don't.

i.e. actually think about the possible consequences of their actions.

I'm not in favour of a life sentence in all cases. I might be in favour of a life sentence being the maximum tariff, depending on circumstances (e.g. repeat killings; yes, it does happen).

I am very much in favour of a public information/re-education campaign along the lines of the drink-driving campaign, that successfully changed societal attitudes. We need a sea change in the attitude to distracted driving. Prevention of deaths, rather than dealing with the aftermath of deaths by punishment. And that includes proper policing, and proper driving bans for those breaking the law, and enforcement of those bans, and strict punishment for violating bans.

In reply to Jim Fraser:



I've tried to illustrate this to drivers in the past when i am shaking with adrenalin and fury having narrowly been missed by them. If I took a swing at you and narrowly missed, would you not be keen to point out that it could have hurt? If you've cut me up, consciously or subconsciously, all I'm going to see is you swinging you car at me.

In reply to Jim C:
Just to be clear, the United Kingdom road death records show it to one of the safest countries in the world in which to be a road user. Often we are the safest major nation by some measures and only beaten by tiny islands with hardly any cars. We and our neighbours and near neighbours in NW Europe, like the Irish and the Swedes, have death rates of about a third of the European average.

Unfortunately, in recent years, our road death numbers have flattened out and the steady reduction in deaths is halted. Intelligent ideas about the causes of accidents and about removing those causes are required. That is how we have arrived at a point where road deaths have dropped to a quarter in my lifetime. It is not what we are currently seeing from government. Draconian measures are just a reactionary fit that will have little or no effect. In particular, they will reduce respect for the law, which is the opposite of what we need.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Just spoken to Siri, asked for a text, gave the message and sent it ( to myself)

It worked and was Word perfect , no issues.
Not tried it with road noise though, will try it in the car later.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


i assure you i have not. dont start your regressive left bullshit with me. a knife is a tool. but can be used as a weapon. a car is a tool but can be used as a weapon.


yes. you are spouting crazy shit. and no i will not "chill". i have been ran over by a car, i have been in numerous car accidents, come across numerous car accidents and had friends killed by cars and distracted drivers. your pathetic excuses and just utter turd opinions dont wash with me. i know what cars.and vehicles can do.


we all have choices in life. and those choices had consequences. if you make a deliberate and wilful attempt to pick up your phone and distract yourself, the consequences could be you or some poor innocent by stander dead, crumpled in a car or smearee across the road. and its thr men and women of the emergencies services that have to live with seeing the carnage you create. they have to scoop you up and explain to mummy and daddy and your loved ones that your dead because you or someone else made a stupid choice.
its culpable homocide. you make a choice and someone ends up dead because of it, or maimed.

there is more than enough laybys ane motorway rest stops. if you cant plan a journey to safely travel, you shoildnt do it. christ i have driven up and down the UK enough times.

Again you could have as much policing as you want, people still do it. people think it wont happen to them. its ignorance.

and no not better phone integration. a phone conversation is enough to distract you. there is fwr too much technology and comouter screens.and phone intergration in new cars thay cause even more distraction.

more public service announcments yes, but hard hitting campaigns of actual footage and of victims trying to remember their lives before the collisions. not this soft, wet lettuce approach.

and a clear deterrent. if you dont want to go to prison, dont pick up the phone. you might get away with it a few times or a fine and a few points but its.only a matter of time before you kill someone.

yes it is. the engine is on. we alreadybhave clear legislation. and it shoildnt allownjust random stopping and putting hazard/4 ways on and causing anotger risk to otger road.

i am sick of seeing people at junctions and lights.sat on their phone, thinking its acceptable.

> It is quite possible that the position of the vehicle might cause an obstruction or some other offence but when somebody has taken the care to wait until they are stopped and have applied the handbrake before using the phone then the use of the phone is not the problem.


i dont care who you are, where you are, what your job is or how much you earn how important a phone call or tweet or facebook stwtus or text is, it can bloody wait.


honestly. its not bloody hard. you are literally a complete idiot.

and ironic how you spouted your liberal political pish about facist government control nd then claim you want more governmental intervention yet am sayimg that everyone is responsible for their actions, and your actions have consequences.

get a grip. we will see how bloody liberal you are when you or some of your loved ones end up dead from a distracted driver.

In reply to Jim C:





again. yoir concentration is not on the road but on the phone and the content of the text or conversation its still a distraction.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


people still end up dead.


ideas like "mobile.phones are distracting drivers from the road and people are dying because of it"

if i drove a forklift without concentration and a deliberate and wilful attempt to distract myseld with a mobile phone .and flattened a coworker, i would be done for manslaughter and rightly so. HSE would go.apeshit and all sorts of investigstions and procedures would happen.

now if you do thr same in your own car in your own time and kill an innocent stranger, why should you be let off with it?


> That is how we have arrived at a point where road deaths have dropped to a quarter in my lifetime. It is not what we are currently seeing from government. Draconian measures are just a reactionary fit that will have little or no effect. In particular, they will reduce respect for the law, which is the opposite of what we need.

i manage not to use my mobile phone while driving for 2 reasons
1 it distracts me and i might cause an accident and hurt someone else or myself
2 i will end up with a fine and points, and if i had the misfortune to hurt someone more severe consequences.

its not rocket science.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


depends entirely on how, why, what they were, where and for what reason.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
for the 869th time, the proposed change is an increase in the maximum sentence from 14 years to life (not 'whole life', but a minimum set by tariff, and release on licence after conditions for this met); not the routine handing down of life sentences to phone users.

you may describe this as 'draconian', i think that's stretching the meaning of the term past breaking point...

In reply to Bootrock:

A bit like doing anything whilst driving?

My son screaming in the back of the car - what do I do?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

tape his mouty shut. pull over and give him a slap. teach him some manners. be a better parent. i am sure theres numerous things you can do.

disclaimer for all you liberal wet lettuce limp wrist brigade snowflakes that was a joke.


theres a big difference between a kid in the back seat, and looking away from the road into your lap and making a deliberate reduction in concentration for the sake of a text, a tweet, a status or what ever else isnthe latest app or trend is.

studies prove that texting and driving reduces your concentration as much as drink driving does.

would you condone me necking half a bottle of vodka and ploughing my car into yours, see how well your son ends up in that?

if you make a choice to distrwct your attention from the road.and turn around and look at your son, and you kill someone, you made the choice to.endanger yourself and others. and you should have to explain or justify your actions in a court of law.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

youtube.com/watch?v=E9swS1Vl6Ok&

Your actions behind the wheel dont just affect you. they affect other road users.

the girl in this video wasnt even on her phone and she was hit by a truck that had to swerve to avoid a texting driver.

look at the kids in the video beforehand, its almost like a societal norm now. and your bullshit excuses just pander and play down the seriousness of someones actions behind the wheel.

its not just about texting. its other apps too and a phone call is just as distracting. if it stops people adding one more distraction when there is already so much more to be concentrating on then fine ban mobile phone use when in charge of a vehicle.

I would argue we need better driving instructers, regulations, limitations and a harder driving test. Driving is NOT a right. its a responsibilty. it is not to be taken lightly. and the punishment should fit the consequences.

In reply to Bootrock:
Ever driven tired?
Ever driven with a cold?
Ever found yourself fiddling with the radio?
Ever seen a hill, climb, sunset, bird, map, and thought of that rather than the road?

I agree that their should be sanctions for the ill effects of our actions, but I'm not sure why phones draw special ire.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Might be more productive deterrent-wise if there was vigorous enforcement of non use of mobiles while driving(it is actually illegal all the time and not just when you have a crash because of it) and maybe default position of imprisonment/ disqualification-and -resit driving-test if caught texting while driving.

In reply to Dr.S at


Because texting while driving isn't simply a momentary lapse, it's premeditated, sustained and abjectly reckless. The message is simple: while you're texting you're abrogating responsibility for an unguided projectile at high speed.

In reply to Dr.S at work:
Phones put ypu in another place, out of the driver's seat. If you're speaking on a phone, unlike a mobile radio (which is still legal as long as you're paying due care and attention), you're actually duplexing - speaking and listening at the same time, which seems to locate you partly with the person down the line. With radio you can mentally compose a message, drop the transmission altogether if necessary. IIRC research showed that people give too much priority to a duplex conversation. If I'm with a passenger I often stop talking and ask not to be interrupted if there's too much going on driving at that moment.

Noisy kids you can cut out mentally in most cases though it definitely raises stress levels

In reply to colinakmc:

Agreed. Treat like drink driving, not speeding, if there is a genuine wish to shift behaviour on this.

I don't agree that it's a draconian fascist plot as some would have it; but entirely accept that proper enforcement and meaningful punishment of low level offenses would be more productive as an approach

In reply to Dr.S at work:

yep

yep
nope.
nope.

someone already answered you, far better than I ever could.

theres already enough distractions. why add another? and why make a deliberare and wilful choice to reduce your concentration. If you pick up your phone and end up killing someone, thats culpable homocide. And the same goes for a lot of other distractions too. It shouldnt just be limited to using your phone.

If you watch peoples behaviour in a car the conversation with the driver stops at certain intervals, approaching a junction or a road about. Because you need to concentrate. As someone else has explained far better than I could, as a passenger I woild know when to talk and when to shut up and as a professional driver I would have no problems telling passengers to shut up.

if you notice police drivers on TV shows they dont (or shouldnt) look at the camera unlike TV presenters and if the PC needs to concentrate then they drop the conversation and focus.

In reply to colinakmc:

So is a drive with a child that is not strictly necessary.

I know that during a 3 hour drive I will be distracted by a child.

For that matter, I know that during a three hour drive my concentration will lapse.

I could change my travel plans to maximise my concentration, and limit the risk that I will injure another.

How many of us take the train to keep others safe?

In reply to Bootrock:

Driving when you are tired is an active choice.
Driving when ill is an active choice.

Just as bad as any other infringment.

In reply to Dr.S at work:
But you plan your journey to limit it and you takenactions against it.

I dont get ill. I am not weak. thought you said driven cold


i disagree. And we have dont a narceleptic society that indulges in naps every couple of seconds.
we do however live in a society where the use of technology is overriding our self presevation and our ability to think about our safety and others.
I have seen countless amount of people on phones step out on roads, in front of Emerfency service vehicles, walk into signs, into other people etc its so socially acceptable and becoming extensions of our body that people think its acceptable to notnjust phone but text and use other apps and games and camera apps while driving.

Its the "wont happen to me" mentality on steroids.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

This thread has devolved into the usual UKC vilification and personal atacks. To be fair, the medium speaks and we are victims to this board. But let's grow up and get back to the issue of driving deaths - which none of us wishes on each other, our children or grandchildren. As others have commented indirectly, bad driving is either first, second, or third degree depending on effect. The cause or original sin is meaningless. All penalties should fit the crime, so texting, drinking, being stupid or incompetent, whatever reason for the cause are insignificant, the only consideration within the law should be: was someone killed? Badly injured? Minor effect? Punish appropriately. Do not single out one cause as having primacy over another. On my local road, the A66 - there is so much lunacy displayed by stone cold sober drivers or drivers scratching their butts or doing any number of crazy distracting activities, all the effects involve carnage sometimes.
DC

In reply to Bootrock:


No excuse, you have driven tired, you did not need to.


Mate, if you cannot read you should not be driving!

Obviously taking the piss to a degree here, but I do not agree that texting etc is dramatically worse than any other distracting action. I do agree that we should take action when injury occurs and that the precise mode of distraction is of limited importance.

More significant is the recognition that we will all get distracted and make errors when we drive. Moving towards modes of transport less reliant on bags of fallible protein is the future.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

And if i killed someone then I would face the consequences.

very good point. i will blame the rum.


you dont say? i disagree that you disagree. And i hope you never have to see or deal with the knock in effect of a texting driver, or any distrwcted driver for that matter.


that worked well for those people on the tram in croyden didnt it? was the driver texting maybe?

In reply to Bootrock:


Good - what multiplier would you apply for tiredness as a contributory cause vs texting?

I believe a fallible bag of protein was involved here?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Its still culpable homocide.

texting is a higher cause of road deaths than driving tired.



True dat.

In reply to Bootrock:

Yep

Really? Got a link to that? ( genuine question - I've seen way more errors made by me when tired than when using a phone)

In reply to Bootrock:


I would say that it IS a slight distraction, but does not require any use of hands , so distraction is minimal, and if the message is short simple text like :-
' text to school'
'We will be a bit late picking Johnny Bloggs up from school, stuck in slow traffic '
'Send'

Whilst speaking directly to a person on a hands free car phone is allowed, it could well still be illegal to hands free text.mBut, in reality the hands- free text is a one way communication, and you will not then be distracted by having someone talking back to you.

A conversation on a hands free device is actually much more of a distraction than simply asking Siri on an iPhone to sent a hands-free text to the school to say you have been delayed.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


google it mate. theres a lot of information and studies have been done. Some really interesting articles and experiments too.

In reply to Bootrock:


Oh look! Bootrock isn't getting this.

In reply to Jim Fraser:



Quite the opposite. It is you that isn't.

In reply to Jim C:
Are you seriously suggesting that's a good alternative to focussing on the task in hand? It's a bloody telephone, it'll still be there when you reach your destination.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

>As others have commented indirectly, bad driving is either first, second, or third degree depending on effect. The cause or original sin is meaningless. All penalties should fit the crime, so texting, drinking, being stupid or incompetent, whatever reason for the cause are insignificant, the only consideration within the law should be: was someone killed? Badly injured? Minor effect? Punish appropriately. Do not single out one cause as having primacy over another.

I don't think you can do this: the level of negligence / prmeditation must be taken into account. At one end of the scale you have accidents which 90% of otherwise normal drivers would not have been able to avoid but still result in a tragic death and at the other you have cars been deliberately driven at people. They are not equivalent offences even if the outlook is the same.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Actually if you did treat it like speeding with a genuine risk of been caught automatically it would be a good start and a good enough deterrent for many.

In reply to GrahamD:

Sneezing for instance, a lot less deliberate than texting and can cause accidents. A sneeze can be brought on by bright sunlight. If death was caused as a result that would surely be a case for compassion unlike the casual drive-texter-sudokuplayer-musiclibrarian

In reply to GrahamD:

My view is the total opposite - it's the act that is bad, not whether it actually caused death in that instance or not, as it *could* have done.

It might be unconventional, but I'd punish murder and attempted murder the same - in both cases the perpetrator intended to kill the victim and intentionally took relevant action, and that is the bad action, not whether they were lucky enough to survive or not.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


Of course.


Oh I see, so you don't mean that penalties should fit the crime at all, just the result of the crime.

Actually I think most people would say that the crime and it's result should both be taken into consideration.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Practically that's what has to happen, as sometimes intent is difficult to determine (e.g. if I shot someone but was incompetent at it and missed, did I intend to kill them or did I just intend to hit them in the foot and disable?)

However, *in principle*, it's the wilful act that's bad, not the outcome. So texting when driving should be punished as that, not based on whether it causes you to kill someone or not.

I think the distinction between "dangerous driving" and "causing death by dangerous driving" is similar to the shooting example - normally dangerous driving that causes death is more dangerous than that which doesn't - but that isn't universally true.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I think we are in agreement here: it is not the outcome that is the crime it is the degree of negligence.

In reply to Bootrock

Seems not:
http://www.driving-test-success.com/causes-car-crash.htm

Gives tiredness at about 3% and mobile phones at 0.8%

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Driving tired would be illegal if it was measurable.

(We could apply tachographs to cars, but in reality benefit would be low it's not the length of journey that is the cause with car journeys - few people drive 18 hour days as would happen with buses/coaches were it not controlled via tachos - it's tiredness for other reasons)

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


In my experience there are far too many drivers who are distracted simply by having a passenger in the car, and they insist on looking at said passenger to talk/listen whilst driving along rather than looking at the road.
These people are dangerous under any conditions, and don't need any other distractions.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes, and I appreciate the difficulties with legislating in this area - just addressing the specific point that use of mobile phones was a more common contributor to accidents than tiredness

In reply to Dr.S at work:





Interesting to not that "driving too fast for conditions" has roughly twice as many accidents as "exceeding the speed limit".
Far too many people fail to vary their speed when it's wet/icy/foggy/etc..

In reply to Robert Durran:




The effect, not the cause. It is very simple.
DC

In reply to fred99:
That's physics - I think it should be explained to learners that if the momentum of the car exceeds the forces available to steer or grip the road because of the conditions then you're on to a loser if you try to rapidly change its direction or speed

In reply to Dr.S at work:






nice link, will have a read and get back to you, I had read otherwise.

Mobile phone useage is easier to control, tiredness could onky be tackled with raising public awareness.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:



So luck, basically. Was there a kid waiting at the bus stop you crashed into whilst on your phone or not ? Doesn't seem like a good basis for justice when two people who have done exactly the same thing (eg ploughed into a bus stop whilst on the phone) are dealt with totally differently because of whether someone happened to be using the bus stop.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


I hoped my reply to you at 13.13 yesterday would have help you see the absurdity of this position.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


coz you'd want to text the police not phone them?

In reply to Jim C:

I thought the whole point of texting was that you didn't get a sentence?

In reply to Fredt:


I'd happily see life sentences for people who don't text in proper sentences.

In reply to Robert Durran:


LOL!

In reply to Bootrock:



It's the really big killers - like "failed to look properly" that we should focus on.

However those are very hard nuts to crack.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Probably being thick here, the total % factors of 'All Accidents' is approx 175%.
Presumably the figures/causes are overlapping?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


failed to look, because they were texting?


They are but we can reduce numbers further by tackling texting drivers just like drink drivers.

would you say that we shoild ignore and not punish drink drivers, because other things cause more deaths?

In reply to Bootrock:






Maybe - still more drink drivers than phone using drivers leading to deaths


No, but I'm not sure that we need to focus very hard on this group - they should be treated in the same way as people fiddling with the radio.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Correct.

From the top ten, failed to look and failed to judge equals 54%. 54% of 1700 lives is 918 lives. Even if you have limited success with those you end up saving hundreds of lives and preventing thousands of life-changing injuries.

I cannot see a date for those figures. The 54% indicates to me that they may not be the most recent as that 54% number has continued to grow. That might mean the mobile phone figure is also not recent and not reflecting recent trends.

If you do not collect the right good quality numbers and then pay proper attention to them, it's not just money you waste: it's lives. Government ministers, civil servants and police have been doing that; wasting lives; during much of the last decade by turning to highly visible options that achieve very little.

In reply to Jim Fraser:




Those statistics can only interpret drivers who have been found to have used their phone. Therefore many of the failed to look/judge cases are down to drivers on the phone, but cannot be put down as that because it was not proven. Not likely to be either unless they were seen to be doing it and prosecuted.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Many of them? From where do you pluck this statement?

In reply to Dr.S at work:
Common sense would tell you that if you observe the habits of other drivers on the road. But, I used to check the accident stat forms when they were submitted.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Interesting - so the forms coming to you said "not looking - probably on his phone" but that data was coded as "failed to look"?

In reply to Dr.S at work:
Sometimes, but more often it would be a case of being told verbally as staff knew what they could put on and what they couldn't. You can't put on the phone down unless there is a prosecution or the driver was deceased and so not prosecuted.
It was a difficult category because often the facts at give way signs or roundabouts spoke for themselves and so failed to give way can be put down even if the driver denies it. Not so with the phone category.
It's probably worth mentioning that it is common practice in all fatals the police will as a matter of course do a subscriber check on all phones available to the drivers. This included text content and call list.

In reply to colinakmc:

Personally, I never phone or text in the car, my phone rings about once a month, I can cope without phoning or texting no problem

However, I was simply stating that there is no need for anyone to use an emergency , as an excuse to text manually , they never need to take their eyes off the road nor hands off the wheel.

I tried it with (my phone on a holder) Car was stationary .
I spoke a few words it created a text, and sent it.
No distracting conversations.
Turning on the radio , and changing station is much more distracting.

People who text manually are certainly a danger to society,I would be less critical if someone texted hands free.

In reply to Jim 1003:

so what proportion of accidents involve phone use would you say?

In reply to Jim Fraser:

True, jim, but they will be a tough nut to crack. You're coming up against the limitations of our cognitive processing and visual systems and there's not a lot we cando aabout our basic biology.

Technological advances may help out by overriding bad judgement but they're some way off

And that's different to knowingly and willingly engaging in behaviour that reduces attention abd increases risk.

In reply to Dr.S at work:
I wouldn't like to say now, as phone use in cars seems much worse, despite the prevalence of bluetooth. All I would say is that it will be considerably higher than the stats. I think that possibly the proportion in fatal accidents might give an idea because subscriber checks will be done almost as a matter of course, unless obviously not a factor.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

True, jim, but they will be a tough nut to crack. You're coming up against the limitations of our cognitive processing and visual systems and there's not a lot we cando aabout our basic biology.

Technological advances may help out by overriding bad judgement but they're some way off

And these lapses are different to knowingly and willingly engaging in behaviour that reduces attention and increases risk.

In reply to Jim 1003:


The statistics I quoted were for incidents with fatalities.

In reply to Jim 1003:
So if the police finds that a driver involved in an accident , had sent a text on or around the time of the accident, should the police try and find out if it was a manual text, or a hands free text ?

Or should the police just charge the driver, irrespective of what method of texting was used ?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I think they will be the most accurate of all stats because of the amount of investigation that goes into them. A lot of the others are just opinion and quickly ticked boxes during a busy day. Hadn't read all the thread.

In reply to Jim C:

Not necessarily - one difference here is that on most cars, not newer ones though, the radio has physical buttons, sometimes on the steering wheel. When you know where those buttons are, you can operate them blind. Whereas it is near impossible to operate a touch screen blind.

FWIW, that means that the touchscreen "control panels" on modern cars are probably a lot *more* distracting than traditional switchgear. Perhaps such things should be revisited.

I think in the end voice commands will win out...they are most of the way there with Siri etc, but until then...

In reply to Dr.S at work:
I'd like car radios and their installation to be safety rated as to how much attention they require a driver to give for simple ops like channel change or volume setting which ought to be possible while driving but with the advent of modern digital control panels have required dangerous levels of inattention to driving.

Then, in the event of an accident causing death or injury where the radio was fiddled with there should be product liability for poor ergonomic design of the radio or its installation. The rating should be supplied with the car so that a driver knows that using such a radio causes a high degree of distraction and can be prosecuted for using it if it is a factor in an accident.

Strangely very old radios with few and large knobs and buttons could be operated easily without any eyes off the road at all, and being physical they didn't retune or forget what they were tuned to like some modern gear

And who the bloody hell decided to remove long wave?

In reply to wercat:
I'd expect soon enough to see all broadcast radio go in favour of an Internet connection. Radio, unlike linear TV[1], won't go away - people like listening to it, and tend to tune in to a station rather than a programme[2] as background music, but the distribution mechanism will shift.

[1] Within 10 years I'd expect to see broadcast television channels being exclusively collections of programmes available online for viewing when you wish, rather than a sequential broadcast - i.e. the iPlayer/Amazon/Netflix model.

[2] Except Radio 4 which is more like BBC2 without pictures, but that will tend to shift towards podcast-style consumption, which is just about the only way I presently listen to it - very rarely do I tune to it live.

In reply to Jim C:

By then it's far too late.

This driver (see below) had been convicted of using his phone six times previously.

The victim might be alive now if the driver had fine, resit driving test, suspended licence, vehicle seized, tagged curfew for evenings/weekends, prison for weekend* and permanent loss of licence in some sort of graduated sequence.

*some countries do that so people can maintain family & job etc in .

A greater deterrent and greater change in behaviour to punish a hundred people before anybody gets killed than punish the one person who kills somebody?

A greater deterrent if your idiot self (not you OP!), spouse, cousin, neighbour, colleague or somebody you know gets done before somebody dies rather than if a few times year a stranger gets life when somebody dies?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-37283994

In reply to Jim C:



It would all be part of an investigation, there is no specific charge for sending a text, but I would imagine the text would be subject of further investigation, and in the end of the day it would be the driving of the accused which would be subject of the charge, as opposed to the text sending, it might or might not aggravate the offence.....

In reply to elsewhere:

Ultimate deterrent. Work all week, then banged up for your 2 days off. :/


I think I've read before that the real deterrent is the chance of getting caught, far more than the severity of the punishment.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


And 14 years is already too much.

Bootrock is lecturing about a knife or a car can also be a weapon as well as a tool. Well, we are not talking here about a guy that goes to a nightclub with a kitchen knife in his pocket. Nobody is thinking to themselves that they'll take the car today instead of the bus in case somebody has a go at me and I need to run them over. Totally different mindset. It is this difference in intent that should be reflected in a major difference in the approach to sentencing.

In reply to wercat:



Like your thinking.

In reply to wercat:


Bastards, utter , utter bastards - they really do deserve banging up for life.