Deterring mobile phone use

[Psamathe]

...
That's why I see so many people using mobiles whilst driving,the answer IMHO is a definite and appreciable possibility of being caught,their licence taken away,a heavy fine,points and the cost of a rehab course.
Though for that to happen we need(effective policing)what we as a society have decided we don't need because they cost too much.

I still keep thinking that the French VSP system has so much going for it. If we adopted it things would be so much easier to take people's licenses away from them (with no "hardship" avoidance) - because they could still drive their kids to school, still visit their customers, still drive to the supermarket and to friends, etc., just they'd have to do it in a

(from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35210572)

A bit of wearing a "I'm a complete unsociable inconsiderate incapable driver who places no value on others ..." for all to see. I really think that 1st offence for mobile phone use should be loss of license forcing that person to buy and drive a VSP for a year (and lots of other dangerous driving behaviours). And people would still be allowed to drive, just showing what a complete !@£$% they are to everybody everywhere they drove! And I don't think that would be excessively strict as they are not having motorised transport taken away from them.

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

Are we eliminating risk or indulging in public humiliation?

We're certainly not doing the former IMHO, for drivers whose behaviour we judge to be such that they lose the privilege of driving, given they would still be allowed to drive.

Might I suggest the reintroduction of the Stocks achieves both objectives admirably

[Psamathe]

Are we eliminating risk or indulging in public humiliation?

We're certainly not doing the former IMHO, for drivers whose behaviour we judge to be such that they lose the privilege of driving, given they would still be allowed to drive.

Might I suggest the reintroduction of the Stocks achieves both objectives admirably :wink:

Eliminating risk seems to require an adequate punishment for breaking the rules that prevent those risks. Through VSPs people can receive adequate punishment without having any excuses of "hardship" allowing them to avoid that punishment. It is a system that they use in France and is certainly far more than just any humiliation from driving a funny little car. The VSP system enables punishment to be implemented in our very car transport oriented society (as without it it becomes far to easy for "hardship" to be used to avoid appropriate punishment/removal of risk).

Ian

[reohn2]

...... The VSP system enables punishment to be implemented in our very car transport oriented society (as without it it becomes far to easy for "hardship" to be used to avoid appropriate punishment/removal of risk).

Ian

Like you,I see the 'hardship' card as the problem,but If the law was strict,ie;First offence = 1 month ban,£200 fine,six points,offender funded rehab course.Second offence = add a nought to the fine,6 month ban,driving retest.
And detection made better,mobile use would be cut to an absolute minimum at a stroke IMHO.

It's whether society,in the form of it's representatives,is interested in stopping it or being seen to be doing something whilst actually doing very little.
TC outlined that,on the face of it,a seeming high detection on a clampdown week in November as being really only a fingernail scratch on the surface of a huge blackboard,the noise is loud but the effect on the blackboard practically non existent,and people know it,so the effect will be minimal.

[Vorpal]

The technology exists to prevent the driver from using a handheld mobile, except for emergency calls. Why don't we use it?

[reohn2]

The technology exists to prevent the driver from using a handheld mobile, except for emergency calls. Why don't we use it?

Possibly because it would eliminate use of a mobile by passengers in the same vehicle?

EDIT:- I've always been of the opinion that anything electronic is capable of being bypassed,hackers are capable of getting into government systems so bypassing a no phone system could be sorted IMHO.

[Vorpal]

The technology exists to prevent the driver from using a handheld mobile, except for emergency calls. Why don't we use it?

Possibly because it would eliminate use of a mobile by passengers in the same vehicle?

http://research.stevens.edu/distracted-driver-research

[reohn2]

The technology exists to prevent the driver from using a handheld mobile, except for emergency calls. Why don't we use it?

Possibly because it would eliminate use of a mobile by passengers in the same vehicle?

http://research.stevens.edu/distracted-driver-research

See my edit.

[Psamathe]

...... The VSP system enables punishment to be implemented in our very car transport oriented society (as without it it becomes far to easy for "hardship" to be used to avoid appropriate punishment/removal of risk).

Ian

Like you,I see the 'hardship' card as the problem,but If the law was strict,ie;First offence = 1 month ban,£200 fine,six points,offender funded rehab course.Second offence = add a nought to the fine,6 month ban,driving retest.
And detection made better,mobile use would be cut to an absolute minimum at a stroke IMHO.

It's whether society,in the form of it's representatives,is interested in stopping it or being seen to be doing something whilst actually doing very little.
TC outlined that,on the face of it,a seeming high detection on a clampdown week in November as being really only a fingernail scratch on the surface of a huge blackboard,the noise is loud but the effect on the blackboard practically non existent,and people know it,so the effect will be minimal.

I remember many years ago in the days when speed trap detectors worked yet were illegal in France, it was always said that if you were caught with one (in France) the officers would politely ask you to give it to them to look at, they would politely take it and place in directly in front of your front wheel then ask you to pull the car forwards a bit and ... no more speed trap detector. Of course it was you (the driver) who had actually destroyed your own device so you could complain to yourself for driving over your own illegal detector ...

Ian

[thirdcrank]

Using a mobile phone at the wheel is regularly compared to drunk driving. What we need, therefore, is a Secretary of State for Transport with a similar approach to Barbara Castle. In fact, probably a bit more in that in our increasingly presidential system, individual secretaries of state have a dwindling level of authority and if "Number 10" of whatever the party in power is frightened something will not go down well, then it never gets beyond the suggestions box.

A twelve month driving ban with no ifs. Like the breathalyser, it would probably take a couple of years to settle down eg the House of Lords, as was, telling the learned friends to stop being silly and then probably revised legislation to iron out anything that had been overlooked and there you have it. Except that in 1967 there were enough police on patrol in uniform to enforce it. Doh! There's a hitch with even the best thought-out plans.

[Psamathe]

...
A twelve month driving ban with no ifs. Like the breathalyser, it would probably take a couple of years to settle down eg the House of Lords, as was, telling the learned friends to stop being silly and then probably revised legislation to iron out anything that had been overlooked and there you have it. Except that in 1967 there were enough police on patrol in uniform to enforce it. Doh! There's a hitch with even the best thought-out plans. :oops:

All a Party has to do is include it in it's manifesto (e.g. "We will endeavour to make our roads safer for everybody, to reduce the numbers of avoidable accidents through combinations of improvements in driver training and increased penalties for those who chose to break laws relating to safety" (then it becomes a manifesto promise and traditionally the House of Lords do not vote down any manifesto implementation legislation.

Ian

[Cyril Haearn]

...
That's why I see so many people using mobiles whilst driving,the answer IMHO is a definite and appreciable possibility of being caught,their licence taken away,a heavy fine,points and the cost of a rehab course.
Though for that to happen we need(effective policing)what we as a society have decided we don't need because they cost too much.

I still keep thinking that the French VSP system has so much going for it. If we adopted it things would be so much easier to take people's licenses away from them (with no "hardship" avoidance) - because they could still drive their kids to school, still visit their customers, still drive to the supermarket and to friends, etc., just they'd have to do it in a

(from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35210572)

A bit of wearing a "I'm a complete unsociable inconsiderate incapable driver who places no value on others ..." for all to see. I really think that 1st offence for mobile phone use should be loss of license forcing that person to buy and drive a VSP for a year (and lots of other dangerous driving behaviours). And people would still be allowed to drive, just showing what a complete !@£$% they are to everybody everywhere they drove! And I don't think that would be excessively strict as they are not having motorised transport taken away from them.

Ian

+1!

we have these in Germany, for disabled people with special rules they are limited to 45. kmh

[thirdcrank]

I used the expression "House of Lords as was" to refer to the forerunner of the Supreme Court. I regularly use the expression "learned friends" as a synonym for the legal profession, especially criminal lawyers. (And before that's misunderstood in its turn, "criminal lawyers" are lawyers practicing in the criminal law. And to be thread-to-needle, I don't use practicing in the sense of training to get better.)

In the early days of the Road Safety Act, all manner of legal wheezes (that's my expression, not from a lawyers' dictionary) were put forward eg suggesting that police headgear (an expression I chose carefully) was a vital part of police uniform and necessary for a valid requirement for a breath test. Extensive and expensive use of the appeals processes were made until the House of Lords put a stop to most of it, especially the really silly stuff. Further legislation sorted out the rest.

In short after "teething problems" the breathalyser was and remains pretty successful, but it has to be enforced.

[Bonefishblues]

In the early days of the Road Safety Act, all manner of legal wheezes (that's my expression, not from a lawyers' dictionary) were put forward eg suggesting that police headgear (an expression I chose carefully) was a vital part of police uniform and necessary for a valid requirement for a breath test. Extensive and expensive use of the appeals processes were made until the House of Lords put a stop to most of it, especially the really silly stuff. Further legislation sorted out the rest.

In short after "teething problems" the breathalyser was and remains pretty successful, but it has to be enforced.

Which is all good, but I think that the biggest factor is how socially unacceptable it became and remains. In absolute terms there's little chance of being apprehended.

[thirdcrank]

... Which is all good, but I think that the biggest factor is how socially unacceptable it became and remains. In absolute terms there's little chance of being apprehended.

It's chicken and egg of course, but at what point did failing a breathalyser become socially unacceptable? I remember the introduction of the Road Safety Act very well: we learnt the old rules, so to speak during initial training at district training centre and shortly after being let out into the real world, we had local training about the new-fangled breathalyser. One of the main items of interest in the breathalyser training was how much could be downed without risking a failure. Older colleagues were quick to urge caution, suggesting, for example that a breath test would only be appropriate in a case where a doctor would have previously be called: ie, if the suspect could more or less stand up, leave them be. Around here at least, there seemed to be a lot of opposition from many doctors, not least I suspect because many valued the medicinal effects of a few sherbets. I've posted before that my own view was largely formed by seeing a doctor on telly saying that a policeman with a breathalyser was a very good public health inspector.

One point about social acceptability is that the venue for a breathalyser charge is the magistrates' court as this offence is summary trial only: no scope for getting it in front of a jury. That's something to be born in mind by anybody urging heavy custodial sentences for mobile phone use. If a defendant has a right to trial by jury, that offers a better chance of acquittal which is greatly increased if the jury can be persuaded that a defendant risks years locked up for something that can be characterised as relatively trivial.

The point about the tiny chance of being caught is one I've consistently made. I've also made the point in that connection that mobile phone use is very easily seen by anybody so they know how much of it is going on unpunished. Driving "under the influence" is not immediately visible in the same way.