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 22 Mar 2010 17:29 JNugent wrote: > Ret. wrote: > >> JNugent wrote: >>> Ret. wrote: > > [ ... ] > >>>> But the problem is that the cover-all offence is usually only >>>> detectable *after* the damage has been done. Let's face it - >>>> driving whilst drunk is covered within 'dangerous driving' is it >>>> not? > >>> No, it isn't. >>> There need be absolutely no element of one's driving being far below >>> the standard excpected of a cometent driver in order for the >>> "driving with excess alcohol" offence to be relevant. >>> It is legally possible for one's driving to be 100% lawful (except >>> for the alcohol) and perhaps even praiseworthy - but the offence of >>> excess alcohol still subsists. >>> I thought you used to be a traffic police officer of some >>> substantial rank? > >> You will note that I specifically stated: 'Driving whilst drunk'. > > What does "drunk" mean? > > According to traffic law it means "scoring more than 80" (or > whatever). >>>> Should we then have >>>> not bothered with specific drink/driving legislation? > >>> The mere fact that the breathalyser (etc) were brought in by the >>> 1967 Act tells you the answer to that one. "Dangerous driving" is >>> too severe a charge to stick just because the driver has had three >>> pints of bitter and may have exhibited no obkective fall-off in >>> driving standards at all. > >> But the punishment is very severe for being over the limit is it not? > > *Too* severe in marginal cases to be just. > > Being banned for a year for a score of 85 instead of a max 80 is not > justice - it is a mere expression of state control freakery. > > Other European countries go in for punishments which fit the offence. You mean like being arrested if you cannot produce your driving documents on the spot? Kev
From: Ret. on 22 Mar 2010 18:22 JNugent wrote: > Ret. wrote: > >> JNugent wrote: >>> Ret. wrote: > >>>>> The mere fact that the breathalyser (etc) were brought in by the >>>>> 1967 Act tells you the answer to that one. "Dangerous driving" is >>>>> too severe a charge to stick just because the driver has had three >>>>> pints of bitter and may have exhibited no obkective fall-off in >>>>> driving standards at all. > >>>> But the punishment is very severe for being over the limit is it >>>> not? > >>> *Too* severe in marginal cases to be just. >>> Being banned for a year for a score of 85 instead of a max 80 is not >>> justice - it is a mere expression of state control freakery. >>> Other European countries go in for punishments which fit the >>> offence. > >> You mean like being arrested if you cannot produce your driving >> documents on the spot? > > You're not having a good day today. > > Being arrested is not a punishment. > > But... if UK law requred drivers to have evidence of their licence/ID > about them when driving, with liability to arrest until able to prove > identity, then fair enough. I was merely pointing out that many other countries have a far more draconian approach to driving offences than we have in the UK. On the spot fines for example. Kev
From: Ret. on 23 Mar 2010 07:02 Conor wrote: > On 22/03/2010 16:00, Ret. wrote: > >> And even if they did attend - how would they know that the driver had >> been using a mobile phone? >> > > Simple. Call history - either on the phone or from the mobile phone > network. But as I have stated before - for minor shunts it is simply not worth the effort. Kev
From: Ret. on 23 Mar 2010 07:03 Conor wrote: > On 22/03/2010 13:30, Ret. wrote: > >> But the existing legislation did not provide the necessary deterrent >> for this particularly risky practice did it? >> >> > > And how well has the new offence for mobile phone use whilst driving > worked as a deterrent? Not very well because the punishments are nowhere near draconian enough. Kev
From: Ret. on 23 Mar 2010 07:04
Conor wrote: > On 22/03/2010 09:33, Ret. wrote: > >> One of the pieces of university research > > ....from a country with 3x the number of accidents per capita.... > >> stated that the majority of >> accidents caused by mobile phone using drivers during the research >> was rear-end shunts. The drivers were so engrossed in their >> conversations that they did not notice that the cars in front had >> slowed down. By the time they did notice - braking was too late and >> the shunt occurred. > > ..Because they were Americans.. > > >> It simply seems so obvious to me. > > The figures disagree. And yet, elsewhere, I have pasted several articles where lorry drivers have done just that - even when the stopped vehicles could be seen from half a mile in advance. Maybe those lorry drivers thought like you - that they could do two things at once efficiently? Kev |