Guy Ritchie banned for texting at the wheel

[Cyril Haearn]

His dad was killed

Quite possibly he has saved other people from being killed, +99

[reohn2]

To my knowledge he's not posted a video intercepting drivers coming out of drinking establishments and attempting to drive, which might seem the most relevant piece of enforcement he could do, given his explanation of his motives.

How would he know if they were breaking the law or even have had a drink at all?

Conversely, whilst Mr Ritchie was clearly breaking the law, it's arguable that he didn't actually present a danger in terms of road safety at that point in time.

...and yes, there's an element of devil's advocacy there, but it's an interesting discussion.

Where do we draw the line?
Is using a hand held phone whilst driving against the law or not?
Mr Richie was in control of his vehicle ,in traffic that could begin to move at any time.
Should he have been using the phone in such a situation?

[Bonefishblues]

To my knowledge he's not posted a video intercepting drivers coming out of drinking establishments and attempting to drive, which might seem the most relevant piece of enforcement he could do, given his explanation of his motives.

How would he know if they were breaking the law or even have had a drink at all?

Conversely, whilst Mr Ritchie was clearly breaking the law, it's arguable that he didn't actually present a danger in terms of road safety at that point in time.

...and yes, there's an element of devil's advocacy there, but it's an interesting discussion.

Where do we draw the line?
Is using a hand held phone whilst driving against the law or not?
Mr Richie was in control of his vehicle ,in traffic that could begin to move at any time.
Should he have been using the phone in such a situation?

To muse further, I think it's worthwhile to look at harm/potential harm. At no point have I sought to argue that Ritchie's offence was anything other than just that, of course. As it happens, Mikey now has national coverage because not only did he film a celebrity, but also that the celebrity was already on 9 points, so received a ban on totting-up.

However, nil/low speed offences where on occasion Mikey can step out in front of a moving vehicle are unlikely, not impossible, but highly unlikely to result in harm**, but there's a very high propensity for serious harm to be caused by excess alcohol - as he knows only too well. Mikey's 'hit rate', even if low, would perhaps result in much more benefit. A very few obviously drunk people intercepted would arguably have a greater net benefit.

Ultimately, I think his actions have a negligible effect, but it's clearly of some personal importance to him.

**And we can, of course, go down the rabbit hole of zero tolerance and so on, and the degree to which it has an effect on overall road safety - but let's face facts, it's close to 100% tolerance on the roads nowadays. You'd need several armies of Mikeys to have any significant effect.

[thirdcrank]

Drink driving isn't something that could be proved after the event using only a vid. FWIW, the HMI report I keep banging on about mentioned a reduction in police activity in that connection.

[Bonefishblues]

Drink driving isn't something that could be proved after the event using only a vid. FWIW, the HMI report I keep banging on about mentioned a reduction in police activity in that connection.

Of course not, but it's something that would be susceptible to a phone call (or might be prevented by the threat of one) though.

[whoof]

I think that these are very important points in this case.

"Bromley Magistrates Court banned Richie for six months on Tuesday after he admitted the offence, earning six points on his licence. It triggered a ban because it took him over 12, due to him already having nine from previous driving breaches"

If there were no case to answer or any mitigating circumstances they could have been put before the court and it would be for them to take these into consideration. How the case came before the court has no bearing on what actions the court took.

Any argument that there are others getting away with offences then you shouldn't be reported or prosecuted is very thin. There are plenty that get away with everything from road traffic offences to murder but because 100% of offenders are not reported and dealt with then you shouldn't deal with me is just wrong. Perfection should not be the enemy of the good.

Nobody has sought to make that latter argument, nor would it be justified. Your previous point I think I made in post 2 of the thread.

Someone was saying 'he's filming and reporting motorists but not reporting cyclists'

[Jdsk]

I think that I've watched all of his online videos. I wouldn't describe him as angry, rather as positive, assertive and confrontational.

I'm sure that if any road user had to seriously consider, before doing something reckless or dangerous, that their actions might be recorded, they might think twice about it. If he's having success in terms of dangerous drivers being punished for driving offences because of his camera recordings, then good on him.

Yes. I'm strongly opposed to the amount of surveillance in the UK and the inadequacy of control and accountability. But driving is sufficiently dangerous to other people that state intervention is justified. As with most bad behaviour perceived likelihood of detection is crucial to deterrence.

Jonathan

[Cyril Haearn]

Could Mikey really be a plain-clothes cop?

[Bonefishblues]

I think that these are very important points in this case.

"Bromley Magistrates Court banned Richie for six months on Tuesday after he admitted the offence, earning six points on his licence. It triggered a ban because it took him over 12, due to him already having nine from previous driving breaches"

If there were no case to answer or any mitigating circumstances they could have been put before the court and it would be for them to take these into consideration. How the case came before the court has no bearing on what actions the court took.

Any argument that there are others getting away with offences then you shouldn't be reported or prosecuted is very thin. There are plenty that get away with everything from road traffic offences to murder but because 100% of offenders are not reported and dealt with then you shouldn't deal with me is just wrong. Perfection should not be the enemy of the good.

Nobody has sought to make that latter argument, nor would it be justified. Your previous point I think I made in post 2 of the thread.

Someone was saying 'he's filming and reporting motorists but not reporting cyclists'

That was me you were referring to I assume? The offences he films are offences. To be clear, pointing out partiality in Mikey's selection process does not amount to presenting an:

...argument that there are others getting away with offences then you shouldn't be reported or prosecuted...

Happy to clarify

[Jdsk]

I think we would all agree that texting while moving is inherently more dangerous than texting while waiting at the lights, but the latter is still illegal and it does still entail some risk because it is a distraction that could contribute to the driver moving off when they ought not to.

And to not having seen something while her head is down. Such as a child or a dog or a vulnerable road user who was visible but is now in a blind spot.

But I agree that hands-free phone use is also a risk and I wish people wouldn't do it.

Yes. IMHO the evidence about distraction is now so strong that the law should be reviewed.

Jonathan

[pwa]

I have had a run in with the law over (relatively minor and unintended) speeding, and my reaction to that was to tighten up my concentration when driving, to reduce the chance of a recurrence. Points disappear from your licence after a few years (I forget the details) so amassing 9 points means getting them all in a very few years, which suggests a lack of seriousness about correcting lax or negligent behaviour. So I have no sympathy for the man, no matter how he was caught, because he is just not learning. He needs a ban to wake him up.

[robing]

Pwa - agree completely.

[Bonefishblues]

I think that I've watched all of his online videos. I wouldn't describe him as angry, rather as positive, assertive and confrontational.

I'm sure that if any road user had to seriously consider, before doing something reckless or dangerous, that their actions might be recorded, they might think twice about it. If he's having success in terms of dangerous drivers being punished for driving offences because of his camera recordings, then good on him.

Yes. I'm strongly opposed to the amount of surveillance in the UK and the inadequacy of control and accountability. But driving is sufficiently dangerous to other people that state intervention is justified. As with most bad behaviour perceived likelihood of detection is crucial to deterrence.

Jonathan

The time may be/should be coming when we should have compulsory real-time camera recording on all forms of transport, with an AI engine analysing footage for offences and issuing sanctions.

TBH I'd have little issue with that, as I'm as squeaky-clean as my competence allows, but presumably Forum members would react strongly to this on civil liberty grounds? That, and we'd have a right old barney about the proportionality of the measures, but let's be honest, 'safety' cameras have limited merit, there won't be any more road policing, so as you rightly indicate, the chances of detection are slim or none.

[Bonefishblues]

Pwa - agree completely.

As do I, btw.

[reohn2]

Boney
To be clear,I've no problem with Mikey doing what he does,OTOH I do have a problem with drivers using their hand held mobile phone,like Mrs Numptieinanissanjoke behind me texting yesterday in slow moving jam that I felt I had to keep my eye on and keep flashing my stop lights,it's very common commonplace but wish it weren't.
Drunk driving needs specialist equipement to detect other than if someone is obviously staggering drunk keys in hand heading for their car.
The point about him not reporting cyclists is a valid one though other than the e-skateboarder I haven't seen any myself,but his problem there is one of traceability,that is of course unless you want to see reg plates for bikes,though I suspect not.

It seems to me Mikey is attempting to nail the vehicle drivers with the potential to cause the most harm ie; motorists driven by numpties.
This may not be the case but he may be rationlising his mission/work by attempting to bring to book those who the world might see as breaking the small laws being of no consequence,but those who do are more likely to break the more dangerous ones.
Is someone who uses there hand held mobile in a traffic jam more likely to use it when traffic is moving?
Your guess is as good as mine but there's plenty evidence to suggest many people do on the open road.

EDIT:- just to add that IMO Mikey is doing what he can where against a tide of numpties who by their behaviour are potentially very dangerous,good luck to him in his work.