Deterring mobile phone use

[meic]

When there is a will, there is a way!
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/humbersi ... story.html

[reohn2]

When there is a will, there is a way!
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/humbersi ... story.html

That's just one police vehicle in one week,just think if there were a 100 of them on the roads on a regular basis?

Although I dearly like to see the penalty raised to £200+six points,I still think it's the threat of being caught that deters offenders,and so needs constant pressure so the motorist won't risk it.
I'd also like to see a minimum £1000+ a 6 month ban for a second offence,causing injury or death should result in the key being thorn away

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Has this been mentioned yet ?

"Motorists caught using their mobile phones while driving will automatically receive six points on their licence instead of the current three and on-the-spot fines will be doubled from £100 to £200, the government has announced."
-----------------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... phones-200

"The DfT said that of 88 deaths caused by distractions in 2012, 17 were because of mobile use – a higher death rate than other in-car causes. In 2014 this had risen to 21 fatal accidents and 22 in 2015

Nobody was jailed as a result of any of those accidents, with records showing one suspended sentence in 2015.

This year it appears judges are cracking down. Last week a lorry driver who killed an off-duty police officer by crashing into oncoming traffic moments after opening a text message on his phone was jailed for six years.

In another case, a driver who was talking on her phone hands-free was spared jail after she killed a two year old. She was looking for a parking space while talking and thought she hit a trolley, Harrow crown court was told.

And a driver who earlier this year caused a fatal pile-up on the M1 while distracted by her phone has been jailed for five years."

[meic]

It has been mentioned before but it is only an intention.
To the best of my knowledge it hasnt been implemented or even started its legislation yet.

[thirdcrank]

Is there a more threadbare word in the context of policing than "crackdown?"

Another is announced today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37968722

Lasting a whole week, BTW.

Drink-driving was a personal choice whereas mobile phone usage was almost a spontaneous offence, he said.

[Psamathe]

It has been mentioned before but it is only an intention.
To the best of my knowledge it hasnt been implemented or even started its legislation yet.

It seems an increasingly common tactic from politicians - announce an intent, do the "we are going to ...", take all the positive PR and then do ... absolutely nothing.

Ian

[meic]

They have "upped" their intention.

When first released last December it was weaker 4 points and £150, they have increased their intention at some point this year to 6 points and £200 fine.

So we have had two public reassurance "we are being tough on this" announcements while in reality the punishment remains the same 3 points £100 fine and enforcement is still weak (for 51 weeks of the year).

[reohn2]

When there is a will, there is a way!
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/humbersi ... story.html

That's just one police vehicle in one week,just think if there were a 100 of them on the roads on a regular basis?

Although I'd dearly like to see the penalty raised to £200+six points,I still think it's the threat of being caught that deters offenders,and so needs constant pressure so the motorist won't risk it.
I'd also like to see a minimum £1000+ a 6 month ban for a second offence,causing injury or death should result in the key being thrown away

[iviehoff]

Several of the high publicity vehicle accidents resulting in high prison sentences have involved mobile phone usage as a key factor in the accident, including, if I remember correctly, one with a 9 year sentence that is the highest death by driving prison sentence I have ever seen.

So I think the message is gradually being got across in the same way that excessive drink/driving eventually became socially unacceptable.

[thirdcrank]

I've unsuccessfully googled for stats about the numbers of drivers against whom action has been taken for using a phone while driving. NB that's not the same as people prosecuted for the "causing death" offences where phone use was an aggravating factor.

By action being taken, I mean fixed penalty ticket issues or prosecution. If necessary, I'd accept figures which include people who had been on driving awareness courses for this offence.

IIRC, snibgo used to be the one for rooting out stuff like this.

Once upon a time, in the days of quill pens, every police force submitted its own "post court" returns to the Home Office but I've no idea what's centrally recorded now.

I'll suggest that this is a matter of public perception, the perception being that the risk of being "done" for this is somewhere between infinitesimal and zero. We see all sorts of media releases of things like doors being smashed down during the execution of search warrants for drug offences and the type of people whose door is never smashed down may be impressed by all the cracking down. However, the offenders know the reality. Now, it's exactly the same with mobile phone use: you can have all the media releases with Q-lorries etc., that you like, but the offenders, who are numbered in their millions, know the score.

You can fool some of the people some of the time.
===================================================================================
PS

I either missed this in my own earlier link or it's a later addition:

The national week of action comes after a previous one in May, which the police said resulted in the detection of 2,323 offences across the week.

Bearing in mind that the RAC has apprently done their own survey which suggests that some 30% of drivers admit to doing this, not many will have noticed being cracked down on. 2000+ may sound a lot but it's statistically insignificant.

[Vorpal]

There is some dated information available http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32337990 which comes from data obtained by requests from the BBC.

The government(s) don't appear to publish these statistics in England, Wales, or Scotland, though the Police Service Northern Ireland publishes these data annually.

This has some data for England and Wales, but again, dated. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 3-tabs.ods

Respondents to the consultation seemed to think that it is a serious problem, and the solution is harsher penalties, rather than increased enforcement https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sponse.pdf

[Psamathe]

There is some dated information available http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32337990 which comes from data obtained by requests from the BBC.

The government(s) don't appear to publish these statistics in England, Wales, or Scotland, though the Police Service Northern Ireland publishes these data annually.

This has some data for England and Wales, but again, dated. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 3-tabs.ods

Respondents to the consultation seemed to think that it is a serious problem, and the solution is harsher penalties, rather than increased enforcement :evil: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sponse.pdf

I think such data are normally got by some organisation or person submitting FOI requests. Only today an example of "enforcement" (or lack of it)

Law banning smoking in cars with children yields just one fine in first year since introduction
...
FOI requests were sent to forces asking how many fines and warnings had been issued in the year after the rule took effect.

Only Northumbria Police gave a figure other than zero for fines, reporting one case involving a driver.

Three forces - the Met Police, Dyfed Powys and Devon and Cornwall - gave figures on warnings, with two, six and three respectively.

I've currently got FOI requests in over my local Council Highways and was surprised how easy it was to submit the request. And even how easy it is to get is passed on to the external legal people when you are not happy about the response you get ...

In my experience requests can be submitted by e-mail (organisation web sites normally give e-mail addresses for FOI requests and normally pretty clearly). So just a matter of getting a list of forces and the FOI e-mail addresses and e-mailing the same request to them all. Surprised organisations like the CTC/CUK don't do this. It not only gets the data but also reminds the organisation that people are interested and concerned about such things.

Ian

[Vorpal]

CTC/CUK have used FoI requests for many other matters. So have many individual RtR reps.

When I made FoI requests, the response was often (but not always) that compiling the requested data/information was too onerous or would cost too much.

Something like numbers of FPNs issued for mobile phone offences by a single police force should be relatively easy to get by FoI.

[Psamathe]

CTC/CUK have used FoI requests for many other matters. So have many individual RtR reps.

When I made FoI requests, the response was often (but not always) that compiling the requested data/information was too onerous or would cost too much.

Something like numbers of FPNs issued for mobile phone offences by a single police force should be relatively easy to get by FoI.

Ironically 5 mins after my post I got the response from the Council's external legal reviewers (after I refused to accept the Council's response) who have accepted that the original response did not clearly answer my question, that they "do not believe that it was an intention by officers not to answer the question directly" and passing on the apologies of the Council.

If you consider they are using excuses (e.g. the "too onerous" or "cost too much" then refuse to accept their excuse and get them to pass it to their external reviewers. If nothing else it makes the point that they should be collecting such information and monitoring such things.

Ian

[reohn2]

So I think the message is gradually being got across in the same way that excessive drink/driving eventually became socially unacceptable.

I simply don't believe it.
Stand at any TL for 15 minutes and watch.
As for drink and drugged driving it's not as socially unacceptable as we'd like to believe IMHO,no evidence other than talking to the police.
And similarly so driving without insurance.
The main problem is a lack of detection,and that because there aren't enough detectors(police),the UK has decided we can't afford to police our streets/roads and are relying on fire fighting reaction techniques instead of prevention.
I can drive all day without every seeing a police car,either obvious or unmarked,it's to do with more than a third less police officers on the roads and streets.