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 20 Mar 2010 15:24 On 20/03/2010 17:16, Ret. wrote: > 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. > Really, for a fatal? Do you not think that would be investigated in the event of a fatal accident? You've stated that it is more dangerous than drink driving. Far more people use mobiles whilst driving than drink and drive. They managed to find out when people have been drinking in a fatal accident and it is childs play for them to check phone records.... -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 20 Mar 2010 15:35 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? >> >>> 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. >> 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. 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. > 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. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 20 Mar 2010 15:35 On 20/03/2010 17:25, JNugent wrote: > Ret. wrote: > >> 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. > > So has there been a reported but effectively "unexplained" large > increase in KSI and other serious accidents since the advent of the > mobile phone? How dare you use official figures to disprove his claim? -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 20 Mar 2010 15:55 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? -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 20 Mar 2010 18:28
On 20/03/2010 20:47, Ret. wrote: > In any case, what benefit does a government gain by falsifying the > degree of danger from a certain action when combined with driving? > The ability to create a law making it illegal and attaching a punitive monetary fine. So yes they gain financially. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. |