Drivers on Phones - What Can we do ?

[[XAP]Bob]

Hope no one minds this here - this issue affects everyone, not just cyclists, but pedestrains , other drivers. People on there phones driving is a menace - whats more its totally uneccesary - a couple of things that have really got my goat recently:-

1.On a 5 mile 20 minute car journey - I counted 7 people - either texting or talking on mobiles

2.Whilst driving home I seen a full size aric lorry - take a mini roundabout - faster than I thought he should have - I glanced unbelvably he was blatantly chatting on mobile phone...

However a £60 fine & 3 points doesn't really deter .....

I have tried to get e-petitions - to get the fine increased - or at least get an advertisng campaign to raise awareness of this issue

I have also tried taking photos off offenders - and posted these on bad driver web sites - problem is it is hard to get a photo including reg plate, and driver - and then of course If I am driving at the time - I am almost as guilty as them - if I am messing about trying get a photo when i should be concentrating on driving !

Any ideas \ suggestions

You could buy one of these http://www.cellphonejammers.co.uk/product.php?id_product=15 (battery powered cell blocker).

So whilst they might be talking whilst you are at some distance from them, as you get nearer they will no longer be talking !! and they wont know why they lost their caller.

In fact, it would be rather nice if loads of cyclists started carrying there around in their saddle bag/panniers/etc. and then mobile phones would become rather useless whilst cyclists are around. ... "I have a dream ..."

Ian

Illegal, and counter productive.

[DarkNewt]

Ian[/quote]

Illegal, and counter productive.[/quote]

Ian is right they are illegal to use, Ian when you say counterproductive I have to agree, if you have ever seen anyone when the signal drops their attention becomes even less as they become even more distracted trying to fiddle with the phone.

I really think the only way to deal with this problem is a HEAVY fine and points on the license as with everything knocking a cyclist off etc.. should be dealt with much more harshly and needs to be taken more seriously, however I would like to make a point that a lot of people miss.

THE POLICE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY, they are the ones who see first hand along with medical staff the aftermath of careless driving, it is the CPS and the legal system that don't treat it seriously enough every police officer I have met is behind a realistic consequence for poor driving resulting in injured or dead cyclists, using a mobile phone being just one example! This is one case where as cyclists we can get behind our police force and focus attention on the lawmakers and those making prosecution decisions.

You can only go so far with educating if there is no consequence nothing will change!

[thirdcrank]

Hints of vigilante enforcement, such as illegal jamming equipment and calls for condign punishment are symptoms of a perceived failure of enforcement. Dealing with mobile phone use is just one part of traffic policing and that has collapsed. The only time when mobile phone use at the wheel is really taken seriously is during the investigation of KSI crashes ie when prevention has failed and detection is a poor second-best.

The expectation of almost inevitable detection and a small fine with totting up points is a much more effective deterrent than the slight risk of a huge fine.

[[XAP]Bob]

Points aren't a deterrent until they mean a ban at some point.

Not an opportunity to say that you need a car to make you feel like a person.

[thirdcrank]

The general points I'm making about the certainty of detection rather than a small chance of "deterrent" punishment can be observed anywhere where speed limits are enforced by average-speed camera systems. Compliance is very high, although sometimes that's helped by the weight of traffic hindering speeders. Contrast that with highly visible fixed location cameras where some drivers slow when passing them, ie where there's believed to be certainty of detection, but accelerate between them, where enforcement is extremely unlikely.

It may well be that the exploitation of the "exceptional hardship" provisions by some defendants detracts from the deterrent effect of totting-up but that simply reinforces what I'm saying about the expectation of inevitable detection and punishment, by undermining the inevitability bit. This also applies to some extent to all the "they can't touch you for it" stuff circulating on the internet.

[squeaker]

Spot on TC: I never understood the speed camera = war on the motorist 'debate'. If you are speeding, you are speeding, end of. And, with sufficient occurences, end of driving for a while

[simonineaston]

Spot on TC: I never understood the speed camera = war on the motorist 'debate'. If you are speeding, you are speeding, end of. And, with sufficient occurences, end of driving for a while

Some people regard it as their right to ignore speed limits - they take the view that the roads belong to them and they know what they're doing and in the case of at least one of my colleague's partners about whom I used to hear a string of stories, on the subject of his driving, you'd think that the police' sole reason d'être was to prevent him getting on with his job, which was an odd-job labourer. Yes folks - you've guessed it, he drove to and fro' jobs in a white van, phone, no doubt, tucked under one ear 'ole, seat belt undone, and cheerfully rushing along at 40 in a 30 limit, on his way, late and hung-over, to his next job... make no mistake, if Trevor (not his real name) were banned, it'd be entirely the fault of the police and it wouldn't stop him carrying on driving one little bit!

[thirdcrank]

Another thing to remember is that people who routinely break the law may not be too bothered about losing their licence - presuming they have one.

But, "otherwise law-abiding people" only tend to misbehave if they think they can get away with it. This means that the more they see others doing something, the more they will treat it as OK. I only mentioned average-speed cameras to make the point about the perceived certainty of enforcement. Another very visible example of what I'm saying is disregard of traffic lights. We are rapidly approaching a point where they might as well be replaced with GIVE WAY signs, if widespread camera enforcement is not introduced because drivers, including cyclists, know that the likelihood of enforcement is small.

FWIW, I don't think there is now the slightest possibility of change without some fundamental changes to the legal system eg an extension of the "decriminalised" system now used for enforcing yellow lines to be extended to a much wider range of traffic offences and to make disqualification from driving an administrative matter rather than a punishment.

[irc]

The expectation of almost inevitable detection and a small fine with totting up points is a much more effective deterrent than the slight risk of a huge fine.

Not sure about this. Drink driving was tackled with education along with disqualifications, huge fines (court fines and vast insurance increases) despite a low chance of detection.

Society just needs to decide that mobile phone use is a priority. I suspect they cause far more crashes than the stats show. My son saw a crash this week where one driver went through a red light while looking down as if texting.

Currently for mobile use and speeding we have the worst of both world. Small chance of detection and small punishment. How can you reduce dangerous driving when even if you are caught you need to get caught 3 more times in 3 years for it to cause much inconvenience.

And the special circumstances allowed for not banning people who reach 12pts needs abolished. If losing your licence is so inconvenient don't break the law.

[blackbike]

In town I sometimes block a driver's progress until they have put their phone away.

Of course, this only works if the driver cannot just go round me and my bike, but that is usually the case on the crowded roads I ride.

To alert a driver that someone has noticed their criminality I usually just give a light knock on their window. The reactions are varied from looks of appalled, apologetic shame to wonderful displays of beetroot faced anger.

My local police force has recently run a one-week campaign against this particular offence, and told us they caught 285 criminals during it. While I'm grateful that the police had this campaign I'm sure that any reasonably alert officer or PCSO could catch that many on his or her own just by spending a day wandering about the streets of one local town, so the campaign was obviously a very low key one.

http://www.wigantoday.net/news/local/po ... -1-7295054

The simplest and cheapest way to discourage phone use would be one year driving bans like drunkards get when they are caught behind the wheel.

Perhaps we could also compel public sector employers to sack people convicted of this offence. Do we want public servants who willingly endanger the lives of the public, even if they are not at work when they do it?

[thirdcrank]

blackbike got in before me:

One important thing about the drink/drive twelve months ban is that exceptional hardship is not a way out.

Apart from that, while breathtesting eventually achieved excellent results, the present situation was hardly achieved overnight. That's no reason not to try to emulate it, of course, but it needs to be kept in mind.

[Postboxer]

The penalty should also include instant phone confiscation, as that would also cause people major hassle as people have lots of information, photo's etc on their phones, some of them also cost lots of money, if you use it, lose it. There, even the beginnings of a catchy slogan for the campaign.

[squeaker]

My local police force has recently run a one-week campaign against this particular offence, and told us they caught 285 criminals during it.

But are they 'criminals'? My local 'force' (Sussex) don't include such 'crimes' ("Road Traffic Offences") when they do a report for the local county committee (I asked at one meeting and was told that they were 'different' by the nice lady with scrambled egg on shoulder who would get back to me and explain later...I'm still waiting), nor do they specify such on their web site.
Anyone (nudge TC) know why?
Embarrassment

[thirdcrank]

The word "crime" is bandied about quite a lot and with different meanings in different contexts.

So, the criminal law largely relates to matters for which people are prosecuted, in contrast to the civil law which is concerned with private remedies such as compo, injunctions etc.

The offences which are statistically recorded as "crimes" are decided by the Home Office, which also receives all the crime stats. There are loads of counting rules decreed by the Home Office which are supposed to ensure comparability of the data, but which are changed as and when. As a rule-of-thumb, crimes are the more serious offences (as decided by the Home Office) and are those which in an idealised world, somebody might report to the police with a view to an investigation and detection. The apparent seriousness or triviality of an individual incident is irrelevant so the theft of a small item is a theft, which is a crime. There have, of course, been plenty of cases involving manipulating these stats.

The two most common broad categories of offences which are not crimes are nearly all traffic offences and minor public order: drunk and disorderly etc. With the exception of accident reports, the stats for offences in these categories are only a record of police activity. ie a hundred drunk prosecuted is only that. It's by no means a measure of the extent of drunkenness. In the context of this thread, mobile phone use, speeding and drunk-driving are not recorded as crimes. The only info is on the numbers of people dealt with for them. "Dealt with" is my expression to cover prosecuted, cautioned, and probably nowadays, offered speed awareness courses.

Be aware that it's a long time since I had any involvement in this. 30+ years. They've invented computers since then. I think the definitions are broadly the same.

I've just rattled this off to try to clarify the points raised in the earlier posts. I didn't think up any of the rules or definitions so I don't feel disposed to defend them, but I'll try to clarify further if something that seems clear to me is opaque to others.

[Flinders]

The general points I'm making about the certainty of detection rather than a small chance of "deterrent" punishment can be observed anywhere where speed limits are enforced by average-speed camera systems. Compliance is very high, although sometimes that's helped by the weight of traffic hindering speeders. Contrast that with highly visible fixed location cameras where some drivers slow when passing them, ie where there's believed to be certainty of detection, but accelerate between them, where enforcement is extremely unlikely.

It may well be that the exploitation of the "exceptional hardship" provisions by some defendants detracts from the deterrent effect of totting-up but that simply reinforces what I'm saying about the expectation of inevitable detection and punishment, by undermining the inevitability bit. This also applies to some extent to all the "they can't touch you for it" stuff circulating on the internet.

That's an excellent post. I agree about the liklihood of being nicked being more significant than the size of the penalty. It's clear that so many drivers routinely speed/use the phone that they don;t expect to be caught, and aren't getting caught; they simply wouldn't be doing it if there was more than a small chance of being caught at it.

I do have one query re average speed limits. When they first came in I'd say compliance was as near to 100% as anything. In fact, personally I think average speed monitoring should be in place between all M-way junctions, just for a start. But lately I have noticed people, including HGV drivers, doing a good 10mph (my estimate) over the 'average' limit (but only in a few specific places so far, so it isn't my speedo, which also agrees with the ones that tell you your speed).
My question is- are some ave speed setups not operating and do drivers know which through nefarious means, or are they not actually enforced in some areas (and the local drivers know it)?