Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while using mobile phones
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Dozens of car fault death crashes finally being investigated at long last but not here.
Next: Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while usingmobile phones
From: Ret. on 20 Mar 2010 13:16 Conor wrote: > On 20/03/2010 14:22, Ret. wrote: > >> Also, as has been stated previously, it is not difficult for a >> driver to dispose of a mobile phone prior to the police arriving if >> no-one actually witnessed him using it. >> > > Wow, look at the straw grasping. Not at all. The reason that many accidents caused by mobile phone useage will go unreported as such as that it is an easy thing to hide. Kev
From: Ret. on 20 Mar 2010 13:20 Conor wrote: > On 20/03/2010 14:33, Ret. wrote: > >> I do agree with you in one sense that it is a ridiculous piece of >> legislation because the research shows that it is the conversation >> that causes the danger and not the holding of the 'phone. IMO, the >> ban should have been on using a cellphone in a car - not just >> 'holding' a cellphone in a car. >> > > How do you police that? Are you going to have the Police pulling > everyone over who looks like they might be talking when in fact they > may only be singing along to the radio? No - just make it a serious offence with a hefty punishment to act as a deterrent. > >> Because mobile phones have been shown to be particularly distracting >> - and far more than most other normal distractions. >> > > However they haven't been proven to be a common cause of accidents. Only because of the extreme difficulty of proving that. > >> So why has the research shown that drivers conversing on a mobile >> have greater reduced hazard perception, slower reactions times, >> longer braking distances, etc. than someone under the confluence? >> > > Because it was funded by someone who wanted a particular answer, just > the same way climate research has... If there had only been one or two such pieces of reseach then I may have felt able to agree with you. In fact there has been a mass of such research, conducted in many different countries - and all coming up with the same results. > >> Both the drink/drive legislation and the mobile phone legislation are >> intended to be preventive pieces of legislation to improve road >> safety. The only major mistake is that research shows that whether a >> mobile phone call is made whilst holding the phone - or hands free, >> makes not difference - they are both equally dangerous because the >> distraction is in the conversation. >> > > Yet the reality is it isn't as dangerous as you're claiming, is it? > You state it is worse than driving drunk yet even though there are > more phones than people in the UK, more people die as a result of DD > than using mobiles whilst driving. How do you know? Ergo, it is not more dangerous > than DD. If you need me to explain why, you're dumber than I thought. See above - how do you know? Kev
From: Ret. on 20 Mar 2010 16:53 Conor wrote: > On 20/03/2010 17:20, Ret. wrote: >> Conor wrote: >>> On 20/03/2010 14:33, Ret. wrote: >>> >>>> I do agree with you in one sense that it is a ridiculous piece of >>>> legislation because the research shows that it is the conversation >>>> that causes the danger and not the holding of the 'phone. IMO, the >>>> ban should have been on using a cellphone in a car - not just >>>> 'holding' a cellphone in a car. >>>> >>> >>> How do you police that? Are you going to have the Police pulling >>> everyone over who looks like they might be talking when in fact they >>> may only be singing along to the radio? >> >> No - just make it a serious offence with a hefty punishment to act >> as a deterrent. >> > > You've not answered the question. How do you police it? How do you police drink/driving? The majority of drink drivers are not detected because they are wandering around the road are they? If the use of a mobile phone in a moving vehicle was made punishable by an immediate 12 month ban, I would suggest that such use would drop dramatically. > >>> >>>> Because mobile phones have been shown to be particularly >>>> distracting - and far more than most other normal distractions. >>>> >>> >>> However they haven't been proven to be a common cause of accidents. >> >> Only because of the extreme difficulty of proving that. >> > Its childs play. All they have to do is to request the records from > the phone company. Too time consuming for minor accidents. > > >>> Yet the reality is it isn't as dangerous as you're claiming, is it? >>> You state it is worse than driving drunk yet even though there are >>> more phones than people in the UK, more people die as a result of DD >>> than using mobiles whilst driving. >> >> How do you know? >> > 16% of motorists questioned admitted doing it in the last 12 months. > That works out at roughly 5 million people who would admit to it. > > Half a million, or 1.5% of all motorists, have had points for using a > mobile whilst driving. > > Taking the figure of those who admitted it, 600 deaths per year should > be directly attributable to the use of a mobile phone whilst driving > yet strangely, there isn't anything like that. How do you arrive at that figure? > > Yet from 1998-2003, when the law was introduced, RoSPA claimed a total > of only 20 road deaths had involved mobile phones. That's 20. In a > five year period. Or 4 a year. I think you'll find that's > significantly less than the drink driving deaths in a single year, > let alone the total for five. But still 20 people dead? > > >> Ergo, it is not more dangerous >>> than DD. If you need me to explain why, you're dumber than I >>> thought. >> >> See above - how do you know? >> > > Published figures on actual deaths. Which do not show how many were caused by mobile phone use do they? Kev
From: Ret. on 20 Mar 2010 16:57 Conor wrote: > On 20/03/2010 19:35, Conor wrote: > >> >> Published figures on actual deaths. >> >> > > Replying to my own post... > > The Department of Transports own figures show mobile phone usage > whilst driving has jumped 27% in the last year. Can you tell me, Kev, > what the percentage increase in the number of KSI or even total > number of accidents has been in that same period? > > Surely if you're correct about it being the death dealer you claim it > is, the rise should be comparable? > > Oh wait, whats this? In 2007, as mobile phone usage whilst driving > continued to increase, road deaths fell to the lowest level since > records began and there was a 59% decrease in serious injuries since > the mid 1990s. > > And then in 2008.. > > "In 2008, 2,538 people were killed on the roads, down from 2,946 in > 200,) and 26,029 people were seriously injured -down from 27,774 in > 2007). > As a result the total number of road casualties was 230,884 - down > from 247,780 in 2007. The figures mean that Britain has met its road > safety targets set for 2010. " > > Oh dear, an inconvenient 14% drop in road deaths. 2008 seemed to be > yet another "lowest level since records began. The figure seems to be > falling despite a 27% increase in mobile phone usage whilst driving. > Kind of puts the claims about the apparent worse than DD danger it > poses in a bit of a poor light, doesn't it? > > Perhaps you'd care to explain why I, or anyone, should believe the > claim? > Why do you continue to believe the government propoganda when their > own figures disprove their claims? Or, like the rest of us able to > think for ourselves, is it finally dawning on you that the 1000+ new > laws Labour have brought in are actually nothing more than a list of > ways to extort money out of people under some completely > unsubstantiated claim? For a start the claims that using a mobile phone while driving is dangerous is *not* 'government propoganda' - it is the findings of numerous pieces of independent research carried out by varying bodies across the world. Can you explain to me just why the government would want to suggest that mobile phone useage and driving is dangerous - if it wasn't? Kev
From: Ret. on 20 Mar 2010 19:18
Conor wrote: > On 20/03/2010 21:22, Rob wrote: > >> If they too introduced legislation which deliberately criminalised >> phone users sat parked in stationary vehicles, then yes, what else >> are we supposed to think? >> > > Indeed. Kev seems to have forgotten you can be prosecuted for using a > mobile phone whilst driving even when stationary. > > Kev must love the police state that this country has become. He's > indicitive of the people too blind to think for themselves who believe > that everything the govt does is for their own good. Not at all. I'm convinced about the dangers of mobile phone use because of the mass of independent evidence to support it. Nothing to do with the government at all. Kev |