About chuffin time too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41627240

 

It's a pity that using a mobile phone doesn't carry the same severity as being drunk or on drugs.

I've began counting the number of people I pass on my way home who are using the phone either to call or text someone whilst driving. It's staggering.

A few weeks ago, I was sat in a queue of traffic and I'd noticed the girl behind me was texting. After moving a few hundred feet or so, I noticed that she hadn't realised the traffic had stopped again. I braced myself only for her car to come to a screeching halt just before my back bumper. Obviously it wouldn't have been a fatal accident, but it seriously needs looking at.

I just don't get it. I find it difficult to keep concentration when adjusting the volume on the radio nevermind using 2 hands to text whilst driving.

 

Most of the sentences given to drivers who kill are pitiful and a downright insult to the families of those killed. Changes to the law are long overdue so lets wait and see if the courts use the new powers to their fullest.

 

I see it too Archey and you're right that it is absolutely staggering. I'm generalising a bit but I find that drivers using their mobile are usually young drivers or van drivers. And I agree that being caught using your mobile while driving should be mean that you are banned.

 

having been a long distance artic driver and worked on traffic management on the motorways I've always said the minimum charge should be atleast assault with a deadly weapon

 

Also as bad as phone use are those drinking hot drinks.

 

Some of the rules are just stupid though. If you're parked up by the side of the road with the handbrake on, its still illegal to touch your mobile phone if the engine is running. I don't understand why the engine running or not running makes any difference? Similarly, you're not allowed to use apple pay at a drive through unless you switch your engine off?

As far as I'm aware, its not illegal to touch your dashboard, either to change the radio station of adjust an inbuilt sat nav. Yet it is illegal to adjust a mobile phone's sat nav, even if its in a holder and even if you're in stationary traffic. Why is it one rule for one, and another rule for another, when essentially its exactly the same thing?

 

I completely agree; the circumstances have to be considered because sometimes fatalities are not the fault of the driver. A very similar thing happened to me a couple of months ago in Oldham. Somebody in their early twenties just walked out in front of me; they were texting and had an iPod or something plugged in so they had lost both of their crucial senses. Luckily for them I was approaching a right hand turn so I was slowing down as I observed them walking towards the edge of the pavement completely oblivious to the road they were about to step out on to.
I slammed on and stopped; I beeped my horn at them but they were so pre-occupied that they still didn't notice me. They were an accident waiting to happen and it will be completely their fault if they are knocked over.

I'm not sure about the accuracy of saying the driver is always considered to be at fault. Again I know this because I was knocked over three years ago and spent a week in hospital. I wasn't texting or on my phone, I didn't have an iPod or anything and I observed the green cross code before crossing. Half way over the road I was knocked down by a driver who was speeding and in my opinion was distracted (probably by a phone himself). The police did not prosecute him due to lack of evidence (despite there being two witnesses who gave statements saying he was speeding). I took a civil action against him and I won but I had to accept a % of the responsibility simply because of the place I picked to cross the road. When you compare my case to the case of the lad your Mrs knows it just underlines how much of an ass the law can be so your correct that the detail in the legislation has to be properly considered.

 

As oppose to cold drinks?

 

Mobile phone usage is an addiction to some folk, its time they were somehow weened of this.

 

"Apparently"?? There must have been more to it.

If the pedestrian (drunk or otherwise) "walked out in front of him" then it would imply the driver was not alert, as he should have been capable of taking avoiding action having anticipated the actions of another road user or pedestrian, in other words paying due care and attention.
I don't accept the actions or condition of the 3rd party (pedestrian) are irrelevant in law. Sure if some child comes out of a blind side road on a skateboard or cyclist comes straight out into the road then there is little time to react and an accident may be unavoidable.
Drive defensively however and you CAN avoid many potentially dangerous situations. Accidents by omission, - *error of judgement or human error should, IMO rarely be considered for Manslaughter or DbDD.
Deliberate action by the driver contributing to a fatal accident i.e. Drinking, drug use , using a phone whilst driving, in-appropriate speeding,
failing to wear a seatbelt or maintain your tyres, brakes or steering properly etc should be.

*Lack of concentration i.e. Driving without Due care and attention is sometimes viewed as a deliberate action leading to DbDD prosecutions but the age and experience of the driver combined with other factors may mean lesser charges are brought.

Driving within the legal speed limit does not mean you are NOT driving safely in as much as driving at 30 in a busy area with lots of pedestrians in heavy rain, fog or icy conditions may be inappropriate. That is the key 'inappropriate speed' .

The lack of facts surrounding this particular tragic event you have quoted means we cannot determine why the 3rd party was not deemed culpable.

 

I think "Driving without due care and attention" would adequately cover trying to set a sat nav whilst on the move unless you have a voice controlled one. Trying to set the destination or change route is the same as texting otherwise and you would have to spend considerable time with your eyes off the road. Glancing at the sat nav for, say, getting into the correct lane when approaching complex roundabout layouts etc does make driving less hazardous provided you don't treat them as infallible. As regards organisations like MADD and BRAKE trying to ban ALL usage of phones even hands free ones because they are a distraction that is nonsense. You would have to ban conversation with passengers for the same reason. How would that be enforceable??

 

[QUOTE="MarioKempes, post: 2028533, member: 7151".......... as I observed them walking towards the edge of the pavement completely oblivious to the road they were about to step out on to.
I slammed on and stopped; [/QUOTE]

That is the crucial part of your post. You WERE paying due care and attention. Furthermore you anticipated (presumably you are an experienced driver) the actions of the pedestrian. Simply put you were thinking faster than you were driving. As a former DoT driving instructor I can say that most young particularly inexperienced drivers often drive faster than they think. They therefore look at the wrong things, make incorrect assessment of hazardous situations or fail to recognise the hazard before it is too late. To state the obvious it is the reason why young drivers, particularly male ones, have far more accidents involving fatalities or serious injuries than older more experienced drivers. Repetition, over many years of driving teaches you instinctively where to look and the order in which you look in given situations. Research in tracking scanning eye movements shows that, although young drivers have faster reactions, older experienced drivers with more miles covered replace the need for fast reaction times with anticipation.

 

That is the crucial part of your post. You WERE paying due care and attention. Furthermore you anticipated (presumably you are an experienced driver) the actions of the pedestrian. Simply put you were thinking faster than you were driving. As a former DoT driving instructor I can say that most young particularly inexperienced drivers often drive faster than they think. They therefore look at the wrong things, make incorrect assessment of hazardous situations or fail to recognise the hazard before it is too late. To state the obvious it is the reason why young drivers, particularly male ones, have far more accidents involving fatalities or serious injuries than older more experienced drivers. Repetition, over many years of driving teaches you instinctively where to look and the order in which you look in given situations. Research in tracking scanning eye movements shows that, although young drivers have faster reactions, older experienced drivers with more miles covered replace the need for fast reaction times with anticipation.[/QUOTE]

I've been driving for thirty years and have driven a lot of miles with my jobs. Fortunately, touch wood, I've never been in an accident where I've been to blame and I think you're absolutely spot on about the correlation between experience and anticipation.

Furthermore I just can't even consider for one second being distracted by texting or tweeting, etc while driving. I'm not sure how different things would be for me had I been born later and been seventeen / eighteen now. I really can't honestly say if the temptation of social media would be too much for me if I was a young driver now. I hope I wouldn't and if I knew that I might be facing a life sentence then I may resolutely resist it. Some seem incapable of staying off their phones but to be fair to the younger generation, I also see older drivers surgically attached to their mobile phones behind the wheel.