Deterring mobile phone use

[thirdcrank]

A driver eating a bowl of cereal at the wheel of his car has been stopped by police during a crackdown on road safety in Greater Manchester.
The man, who was stopped in Manchester Road, Hyde, was one of four people reprimanded for not being in proper control of a vehicle.
He was given six points on his licence and an on-the-spot fine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-38068317

Perhaps porridge next?

[horizon]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -crackdown

[thirdcrank]

Suzette Davenport, the NPCC lead for roads policing, said: “This week, forces will be working to make driving distracted as socially unacceptable as drink-driving through enforcing strong deterrents and powerful messages to make people think twice about their driving habits.

“Encouraging results from last year’s campaign against mobile phone use show how effective new tactics and innovative approaches can be. Officers will continue to use intelligence-led tactics to target police activity and resources and catch repeat offenders.
“Forces will be working throughout the year to tackle this behaviour by motorists with national partners and the public. Remember: when at the wheel, your calls or texts can wait. Keep your eyes on the road.” (My emphasis)

Can anybody explain the bit I've underlined?

[Vorpal]

Suzette Davenport, the NPCC lead for roads policing, said: “This week, forces will be working to make driving distracted as socially unacceptable as drink-driving through enforcing strong deterrents and powerful messages to make people think twice about their driving habits.

“Encouraging results from last year’s campaign against mobile phone use show how effective new tactics and innovative approaches can be. Officers will continue to use intelligence-led tactics to target police activity and resources and catch repeat offenders.
“Forces will be working throughout the year to tackle this behaviour by motorists with national partners and the public. Remember: when at the wheel, your calls or texts can wait. Keep your eyes on the road.” (My emphasis)

Can anybody explain the bit I've underlined?

Yes, that's a special language for enhancing public image. It produces effectively meaningless, but pleasant sounding phrases which cause people to feel warm and encouraged about something.

[ianrobo]

A driver eating a bowl of cereal at the wheel of his car has been stopped by police during a crackdown on road safety in Greater Manchester.
The man, who was stopped in Manchester Road, Hyde, was one of four people reprimanded for not being in proper control of a vehicle.
He was given six points on his licence and an on-the-spot fine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-38068317

Perhaps porridge next?

this is why nothing will change, you jokingly say jail him, I don;t, he is in charge of a vehicle that can kill, not being in control - 4-12 weeks in Jail, that would change behaviour quickly as for most would mean losing job.

[reohn2]

A driver eating a bowl of cereal at the wheel of his car has been stopped by police during a crackdown on road safety in Greater Manchester.
The man, who was stopped in Manchester Road, Hyde, was one of four people reprimanded for not being in proper control of a vehicle.
He was given six points on his licence and an on-the-spot fine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-38068317

Perhaps porridge next?

this is why nothing will change, you jokingly say jail him, I don;t, he is in charge of a vehicle that can kill, not being in control - 4-12 weeks in Jail, that would change behaviour quickly as for most would mean losing job.

Six points,losing his driving licence for four weeks and attending rehab course(paid for by the offender) would be more appropriate IMHO.
Second offence 6 months ban,add a nought to the fine and resit his driving test,should be deterrent enough for most people to sit up and take note.

[ianrobo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-38068317

Perhaps porridge next?

this is why nothing will change, you jokingly say jail him, I don;t, he is in charge of a vehicle that can kill, not being in control - 4-12 weeks in Jail, that would change behaviour quickly as for most would mean losing job.

Six points,losing his driving licence for four weeks and attending rehab course(paid for by the offender) would be more appropriate IMHO.
Second offence 6 months ban,add a nought to the fine and resit his driving test,should be deterrent enough for most people to sit up and take note.

So he/she is potentially driving a killer and basically a slap on the wrist ? chances of being caught is low yet punishment is low ? Should not be doing it, no excuses so lets have harsh punishments

[thirdcrank]

Before anybody can be punished, they need to be caught.

It's often difficult to measure the wider effects of policing so inputs - police activity - are counted instead. The extent of this enforcement is presented as somehow huge: 49 offenders an hour are said to have been the subject of enforcement. This was a in a week when it was being targeted, the implication being that the usual level of enforcement is significantly lower, but it's not reported so we don't know. When I last checked, there were 43 "Home Office" police forces in England and Wales. On that basis we are talking about a little over one detection per force, per hour. OK, the size of forces varies and several did not participate (and consider writing to your friendly local Police and Crime Commissioner if this happened near you) but even so, it represents only a handful of cases for each force.

There are some offences where the ordinary person can have little idea of how much is going on because they depend on the media for information, and the media in turn tend to rely on official media releases like this one, but everybody can see the extent of this offence for themselves: it's happening all around. Stand at the side of any busy road and I'm pretty sure you would see 49 hand-held mobile phone users long before an hour had elapsed.

(Before anybody points it out, I know that one person could not stop and report 49 drivers in an hour and I know that the visible presence of the police at the roadside will briefly cause a lot of phones to be put away.)

[ianrobo]

Before anybody can be punished, they need to be caught.

hence the increase in dash and cycle cams making an impact

[thirdcrank]

... hence the increase in dash and cycle cams making an impact

It would be good to see evidence that that is so. All I ever seem to read is tales of the police either refusing to act on complaints based on that type of evidence or kicking it into the long grass, which is ultimately the same thing. The West Midlands Police blog has recently been linked a couple of times and they do apparently have a system for receiving this type of evidence and I'm hoping to hear positive reports from satisfied forum members.

As a procedural point, it seems to me that third party reports of mobile phone use are a particularly cumbersome way of tackling this offence, as compared with a police officer stopping the alleged offender at the time and confirming that an offence has been committed eg checking that it is a mobile phone and not some joker recording wisecracks.
==========================================================================
Edit to add:-

Ms Suzette Davenport - the chief constable quoted in my link - is on record dismissing this type of evidence.

viewtopic.php?p=872223#p872223

[reohn2]

So he/she is potentially driving a killer and basically a slap on the wrist ? chances of being caught is low yet punishment is low ? Should not be doing it, no excuses so lets have harsh punishments

I don't consider the penalties I've outlined to be a 'slap on the wrist' for a first offence or second one FTM.
Third offence I'm all for some seriously heavy stuff,but I still be reluctant to lock 'em up unless they have string of offences and aren't learning.

TBH like TC has mentioned above the problem isn't one of penalties,it's one of detection.
Most offenders if they knew they'd be caught wouldn't commit the crime.
Of course that's not the whole story for everyone driving as the recent case of someone done 8 times for mobile abuse at the wheel,who's licence was still in place and went on to kill someone whilst doing it again.

The UK desperately needs an effective police force not only for traffic but across the board,but joe public decided they prefer lower taxes

[horizon]

There is a balance to be reckoned between deterrence and detection. The higher the detection rate, the lower the deterrence needs to be and vice versa. However, that's not the whole story. As with hanging and nuclear weapons, the punishment needs to be both proportionate and deliverable. Prison sentences for first time mobile phone use are neither. But something that makes deterrence both easy to administer and proportionate to the offence is loss of licence. Remember, you don't have to catch every mobile phone user - that's where deterrence comes in. And if detection does actually result in a quick and cheap automatic six month ban then I think there could be success. This requires phone use to be seen as significantly dangerous: when that perception shifts, police and magistrates will act to prosecute and punish because the punishment is both proportionate and cheap and thus effective.

[ianrobo]

If a member of your family or friends were seriously injured by someone with a phone would you say this? As a driver and cyclist I try my very best to obey the law and try not to be someone who kills.

Maybe prison for first time is too harsh but the current level is a joke and should be at the same level as drake driving but 2 year ban and no exceptions regardless of personal circumstances.

Saw three people today on a shortish ride of 2 hours on their phones so it happens a lot.

[mjr]

Saw three people today on a shortish ride of 2 hours on their phones so it happens a lot.

I'd pay good money for only three in 2 hours! I saw 7 in 5 minutes this afternoon. The lunatics are running amok.

[horizon]

If a member of your family or friends were seriously injured by someone with a phone would you say this?

Yes, I would say it now to prevent them (or anyone) being killed later. Prevention is a lot better than punishment! And punishment as a deterrent relies on it being proportionate and cheap. Banning prevents future accidents - banning is not the punishment for killing someone, it's the punishment for using a phone.