PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Is the penalty for mobile phones too harsh?
Flower123
post Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 11:30
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 21 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,338



Should a person sat in traffic using their mobile get the same fine and penalty points as someone who is using their mobile on the motorway?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 36)
Advertisement
post Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 11:30
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 11:34
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 12:31) *
Obviously best if in a proper parking place and engine off but whether keys in or out makes no difference, that thought comes IMO from Drink laws where you can be convicted of Drunk in Charge even if no intention to drive.

That's not quite true, as there's a defence if you can show that you were not going to drive until you sobered up. Otherwise anyone drunk getting home in a taxi, and walking past their car parked on the drive with the keys in their pocket, would be committing an offence.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 11:38
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 12:34) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 12:31) *
Obviously best if in a proper parking place and engine off but whether keys in or out makes no difference, that thought comes IMO from Drink laws where you can be convicted of Drunk in Charge even if no intention to drive.

That's not quite true, as there's a defence if you can show that you were not going to drive until you sobered up. Otherwise anyone drunk getting home in a taxi, and walking past their car parked on the drive with the keys in their pocket, would be committing an offence.


I did say can not would wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 12:15
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (Korting @ Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 23:38) *
But you could be on the phone before you get in the car or even in the car but before you've started the engine and then made bad decisions possibly as a result of that phone call, but in that situation you couldn't be done for using a mobile.

And that's not the scenario that prompted the discussion I replied to.

I know you're trying to play devils advocate, but your scenario is meaningless. It relates to someones state of mind after a conversation, where the contents of that conversation are what caused their state of mind, not the technology that enabled that conversation. The reason why using a phone before pulling away can be dangerous is because you are distracted by the phone at the time when you should be making observations so that you are prepared to pull away when the lights change. It's not because using the phone has some lasting effect on a driver that makes them make mistakes later on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richy320
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 20:09
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 425
Joined: 4 Aug 2014
From: In the beautiful Chilterns
Member No.: 72,309



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 11:20) *
QUOTE (Richy320 @ Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 09:53) *
QUOTE (Flower123 @ Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 12:30) *
Should a person sat in traffic using their mobile get the same fine and penalty points as someone who is using their mobile on the motorway?

Yes.

If both are just using their phones to talk on then they should both get the same points - None!

Texting or internetting are different.



Jeez.....
Tother day I was joining the M6 south from the M5 north.
Dual slip road, left hand for exit at M6 J7, right hand to join the M6.
There was a mobile traffic jam doing 40mph from the last 100yds of the slip onto the M6.
At a time when traffic on the M6 was NSL so doing 50-70mph.

So effin dangerous and difficult to join at matching speed, lorries shooting out into lane 2 where the MLOC were getting nadgy, everything closing up, not a good situation.
The cause of all this hilarity, one twassock doing 40mph while he chats to someone with his phone clamped to his ear, held firmly in his hand.
Totally oblivious to the issues he was causing, for my money, I would not object to an instant ban for twonkers like this.

I am sure we all have anecdotal stories of a similar nature.


Interested why texting or tinternet should be different is static in a queue as well ?

If said twassock was using the phone in an appropriate cradle then that would not be illegal. It’s the conversation that’s distracting, not the act of holding the phone, yet the law rather ridiculously concentrates on how the phone is actually held. It could easily be argued that actually holding phone to your ear is safer than having it in a legally approved in a cradle, as it’s pretty difficult to text or check social meeja with the screen clamped to your ear.

The law should be more concerned with how the car is driven, using existing legislation if necessary, than with how the phone is being held, which is irrelevant.


--------------------
Speed does not kill. It's more to do with how you stop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 20:17
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Not in proper control? Careless driving? Dangerous driving?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richy320
post Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 07:38
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 425
Joined: 4 Aug 2014
From: In the beautiful Chilterns
Member No.: 72,309



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 20:17) *
Not in proper control? Careless driving? Dangerous driving?

These.


--------------------
Speed does not kill. It's more to do with how you stop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 10:03
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



Last night I was behind a car in stationary traffic on a two lane dual carriageway (traffic light controlled roundabout ahead, ~200m queue of traffic that moved/stopped with the traffic light cycle) and a police car came up behind with lights and sirens on. The Red Sea parted and the police car came up the middle till it got to the car ahead of me that hadn't pulled over - at which point I saw the driver was staring intently at her lap. I beeped my horn and she looked up in shock and moved.

Fortunately for her, the police probably didn't have the same view of her that I did and they were definitely too busy to stop and give her a bollocking, but it's yet another example of why phone use in stationary traffic can still be an issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Charlie1010_*
post Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 13:21
Post #28





Guests






It’s called the Faceache, Whatsthatcrap, Twatter, Snatchchat manoeuvre.
Driver unaware of surroundings. Attention on the road is minimal if at all.
Other events ‘wake’ the driver.
Driver then manoeuvres.

Sometimes there is no event.
I see cars stationary in traffic at lights which then move forward for no apparent reason.
The lights are still red but driver wasn’t paying attention so made a reflex manoeuvre after updating Faceache.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 16:47
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Actually Twatter - The Anti-Social Network is a real thing.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Fri, 27 Sep 2019 - 06:35
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,283
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 21:17) *
Not in proper control? Careless driving? Dangerous driving?

But which is easier to prove? One of these or "holding a mobile phone"? I think we know the answer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 27 Sep 2019 - 07:59
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Fri, 27 Sep 2019 - 07:35) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 21:17) *
Not in proper control? Careless driving? Dangerous driving?

But which is easier to prove? One of these or "holding a mobile phone"? I think we know the answer.

The offence requires more than holding a mobile phone. In many instances, proving that the use was for an interactive communication will be more difficult than proving, say, careless.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mat_Shamus
post Sat, 28 Sep 2019 - 08:07
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 502
Joined: 11 May 2014
From: Scotland.
Member No.: 70,553



QUOTE (Spandex @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 13:15) *
I know you're trying to play devils advocate, but your scenario is meaningless. It relates to someones state of mind after a conversation, where the contents of that conversation are what caused their state of mind, not the technology that enabled that conversation. The reason why using a phone before pulling away can be dangerous is because you are distracted by the phone at the time when you should be making observations so that you are prepared to pull away when the lights change. It's not because using the phone has some lasting effect on a driver that makes them make mistakes later on.


Yes, you replied to me and i mentioned that if a driver is doing something else that's distracting like changing the radio station or adjusting the climate control distracted the same way as using a mobile phone for texting or similar when in stationary traffic. The distraction would be the same and the risk would be the same in knee jerk your hypothetical scenario with running people over. Would you advocate 6 points for doing either of those also?

Don't get me wrong, i don't like drivers who use mobile phones when driving and i'm certainly not one of them, but i don't think it's rational to give someone the same points and fine for using a mobile phone whilst in stationary traffic to text, vs someone driving in rush hour on the motorway at 70mph whilst holding the phone to their ear. The same way someone doing 36mph in a 30mph limit shouldn't be punished the same way as someone doing 60mph in a 30mph limit
The risks are different and the punishments should vary to take that into account.


--------------------
Patience is something you admire in the driver behind you, but not in one ahead.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 28 Sep 2019 - 12:13
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mat_Shamus @ Sat, 28 Sep 2019 - 09:07) *
Don't get me wrong, i don't like drivers who use mobile phones when driving and i'm certainly not one of them, but i don't think it's rational to give someone the same points and fine for using a mobile phone whilst in stationary traffic to text, vs someone driving in rush hour on the motorway at 70mph whilst holding the phone to their ear. The same way someone doing 36mph in a 30mph limit shouldn't be punished the same way as someone doing 60mph in a 30mph limit
The risks are different and the punishments should vary to take that into account.

Well if the police feel anything more than the fixed penalty is warranted, they can summons to court and seek a harsher penalty, just as they'd do for someone doing 60 in a 30.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Sat, 28 Sep 2019 - 13:56
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (Mat_Shamus @ Sat, 28 Sep 2019 - 09:07) *
Yes, you replied to me and i mentioned that if a driver is doing something else that's distracting like changing the radio station or adjusting the climate control distracted the same way as using a mobile phone for texting or similar when in stationary traffic. The distraction would be the same and the risk would be the same in knee jerk your hypothetical scenario with running people over. Would you advocate 6 points for doing either of those also?

But it’s not just supposed to be a punishment for one action, is it. It’s primarily supposed to be a deterrent.

People use their phones more often and for much longer than they adjust something on the radio, etc. They are significantly more distracting in that sense, and they are significantly more compelling (you change the radio when you get a chance, but people often feel compelled to check their phone and respond immediately).

But to answer your question, if people changing the station on their radio started causing the same number of accidents as mobile phone use, then I would absolutely agree with treating it the same.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ConfusedDaze
post Sat, 28 Sep 2019 - 23:49
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: 2 Nov 2014
From: London
Member No.: 73,952



Have accidents that were caused specifically by mobile phone use gone down since the introduction of the ban by a meaningful amount?

Haven't looked at the stats in a while. The lower speed resulting in fewer accidents in most cases seems to be a bit of a red herring when you look at the statistics.

Just wondering if the stats backed up a usefulness of banning mobile phones, we seemed to be able to drive and use them perfectly well for a long time without a law in place to prevent it.

Not advocating mobile phone use whilst driving just wondering if yet again banning it hasn't really done much to make the roads safer.


--------------------


Thanks
CD
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 28 Sep 2019 - 23:58
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



But you won't find any meaningful statistics because:

1) The adoption of mobile phones today is going to be significantly higher than in 2003
2) The available functionalities on a mobile phone (even if you only consider interactive communication functionalities) is significantly higher than in 2003.

You can't measure like for like.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Sun, 29 Sep 2019 - 09:42
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,768
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 28 Sep 2019 - 13:13) *
QUOTE (Mat_Shamus @ Sat, 28 Sep 2019 - 09:07) *
Don't get me wrong, i don't like drivers who use mobile phones when driving and i'm certainly not one of them, but i don't think it's rational to give someone the same points and fine for using a mobile phone whilst in stationary traffic to text, vs someone driving in rush hour on the motorway at 70mph whilst holding the phone to their ear. The same way someone doing 36mph in a 30mph limit shouldn't be punished the same way as someone doing 60mph in a 30mph limit
The risks are different and the punishments should vary to take that into account.

Well if the police feel anything more than the fixed penalty is warranted, they can summons to court and seek a harsher penalty, just as they'd do for someone doing 60 in a 30.

To answer the OP the 6 point penalty in stationary traffic seems about right whereas using the phone at speed on a busy motorway should result in a six month ban.

QUOTE (Spandex @ Sat, 28 Sep 2019 - 14:56) *
QUOTE (Mat_Shamus @ Sat, 28 Sep 2019 - 09:07) *
Yes, you replied to me and i mentioned that if a driver is doing something else that's distracting like changing the radio station or adjusting the climate control distracted the same way as using a mobile phone for texting or similar when in stationary traffic. The distraction would be the same and the risk would be the same in knee jerk your hypothetical scenario with running people over. Would you advocate 6 points for doing either of those also?

But it’s not just supposed to be a punishment for one action, is it. It’s primarily supposed to be a deterrent.

Effective deterrence requires a high likelihood of detection & conviction. At present mobile phone usage is like pre-breathalyser drink driving as many drivers know that it's wrong but are prepared to take the risk as they are unlikely to get caught.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:20
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here