Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while usingmobile phones
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while using mobile phones
Next: Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while using mobile phones
From: Conor on 22 Mar 2010 19:08 On 22/03/2010 13:42, Ret. wrote: > The research is very simple - measure a driver's performance when he is > not on the phone - and then measure it when he is. The results, when > added to other non-driving research on the inability of the human brain > to efficiently multi-task, is total common sense IMO. > You mean like they did on 5th Gear when they covered driving under the influence of cannabis? As I recall, the subjects did it faster and better when stoned. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 22 Mar 2010 19:10 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. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 22 Mar 2010 19:12 On 22/03/2010 16:09, Ret. wrote: > A simulator 'route' would have a number of 'hazards' introduced, as well > as other traffic to deal with. In assessing performance a driver would > be judged on his hazard perception - how quickly he noticed upcoming > potentially dangerous situations. He would also be judged on how quickly > he responded to changing driving situations - cars in front braking and > slowing down, cars in front signalling, traffic lights changing. > I've tried driving simulators. They're completely unrealistic. No feedback. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: JNugent on 22 Mar 2010 19:16 Ret. wrote: > 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. You chose an odd way to illustrate it. Liability to arrest on suspicion is not "draconian". IMHO it should happen automatically to traffic-light abusing cyclists until they prove their identity, but the power is there now in cases where identity is doubted. > On the spot fines for example. What's wrong with that (in principle it's little different from the non-fixed penalty)? Whether an on the spot fine is "draconian" depends on whether: (a) the fine is reasonable in (all) the circumstances; (b) paying it means the end of the matter; and (c) there is an effective way to dispute it. In the meantime, I would prefer a system where very minor infractions are treated as less serious than... er... very serious infractions.
From: Conor on 22 Mar 2010 19:18
On 22/03/2010 22:22, Ret. wrote: > 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. > Excellent idea for absolute offences. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. |