Drivers flouting mobile phone ban.

[spindrift 10]

As with speeding, the KSI rates (Killed or Seriously Injured) tell only a part of the story.

 

A speeding driver, or one chatting on a mobile, does not have to have an accident to have a negative impact. Careless driving threatens and intimidates people, deters vulnerable road users like children, pensioners, cyclists. It makes the roads appear lawless and effects quality of life.

 

Stupid drivers have an effect even if they're lucky enough not to smash into someone.

[DragonofAna 10]

Am I the only one thinking that 4 people dying from people using mobile phones whilst driving should mean it should be low priority and the current punishments are already adequate?

 

Especially considering those 4 deaths were probably punished by 'death by dangerous driving or without due care and attention'.

 

Until it is one of your kids that becomes a statistic of death by mobile phone usage whilst driving. Then it becomes a different matter altogether. That those four people may have lived had mobiles not been used should be incentive enough to stop this law being broken.

 

Dragon of Ana

[HeadingNorth 11]

Well lets take an extreme and say that if you are caught using your mobile while driving you will serve a term of life in prison - I reckon the use of mobiles whilst driving would drop considerably.

 

That was the thinking, back in the 18th century, behind introducing the death penalty for almost every crime you could possibly think of.

 

The crime wave got worse, not better. Severity of punishment simply does not persuade people not to commit crimes. The likelihood of enforcement is by far the overriding factor; if people expect to get caught, they won't do it anyway, whatever the punishment is. If they don't, no level of punishment will persuade them not to do it.

[Ousetunes 10]

So, it having just been proven that making the sentence harsher does not prevent people committing the offence, your argument is that we should make the sentence harsher?

 

They may have made the penalties harsher but IMO they're nowhere near harsh enough.

 

What's £60? What are three points on a license?

 

Let's go big on these penalties, hence my post.

 

Best suggestion is to simply crush the car but I fear the one penalty which might put the wind of God up these people is to crush their mobile phone and ban them from owning another one.

 

They'd probably sooner lose an arm or leg.

[DragonofAna 10]

That was the thinking, back in the 18th century, behind introducing the death penalty for almost every crime you could possibly think of.

 

The crime wave got worse, not better. Severity of punishment simply does not persuade people not to commit crimes. The likelihood of enforcement is by far the overriding factor; if people expect to get caught, they won't do it anyway, whatever the punishment is. If they don't, no level of punishment will persuade them not to do it.

 

I was not around in the 18th century and do not have access to the statistics from that period of time or the laws that were supposedly broken. Crimes may have increased only because more things were considered an offence which before the penalty were not.

 

How do you propose to catch people using their mobiles when even having cctv everywhere does not seem to deter? And if I get caught using a mobile whilst driving (which I would never do) and the penalty is a telling off then I would not mind being caught. However - if my car is likely to be crushed or a prison sentence then I am much less likely to take the risk surely?

 

Dragon of Ana

[SimpyTimpy 10]

Until it is one of your kids that becomes a statistic of death by mobile phone usage whilst driving. Then it becomes a different matter altogether. That those four people may have lived had mobiles not been used should be incentive enough to stop this law being broken.

 

Dragon of Ana

 

I understand that point, but emotions should play little part in the setting of policies.

 

In 2008, thousands died from MRSA in hospital, see: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1067

 

Death rates for the globe, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

 

Out of 20 million or so drivers in the UK, only 4 deaths is really really insignificant (0.0002%) and therefore, even if all deaths caused by using mobile phones were to be eradicated, would the effort have justified the reward.

 

My point is the police would be better directing their resource elsewhere.

[Projekt 10]

I dont realy see what else can be done to stop people using their phones whilst driving. Perhaps we should just accept that it happens, but just keep reminding people that its dangerous and you'l be for it if a copper catches you.

[DragonofAna 10]

My point is the police would be better directing their resource elsewhere.

 

Perhaps it is this that allows so many who ignore this law to get away with the crime. I have yet to see one person being pulled for driving while using a mobile - and I see lots of drivers who do use them.

 

More people die through heart disease than are the victim of gun crime so perhaps we should just forget about gun crime and redirect the resources elsewhere.

 

Dragon of Ana

[spindrift 10]

"only 4 deaths is really really insignificant"

 

Once again, the KSI rates tell only part of the story. Bad driving frequently has victims even if nobody's hurt.

 

Speeding drivers were the number 1 concern of the public in a British Crime Survey:

 

http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsandevents/releases/PR3936.aspx

 

 

 

We need a brutal anti-mobile advert like this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr12R30ouHc&feature=player_embedded

 

Safe For Work but pretty horrible.

[SimpyTimpy 10]

Perhaps it is this that allows so many who ignore this law to get away with the crime. I have yet to see one person being pulled for driving while using a mobile - and I see lots of drivers who do use them.

 

More people die through heart disease than are the victim of gun crime so perhaps we should just forget about gun crime and redirect the resources elsewhere.

 

Dragon of Ana

 

Maybe this forms part of the argument about using mobiles whilst driving, but it's not the point I'm trying to make.

[dumpling 10]

3%? Ha! No chance. I'd say it's a figure between 10% and 30%.

 

The answer to solving this problem is simple:

 

Maximum fine of £3,000 and an 18 month ban.

 

If that's not good enough, crush the car.

 

Nobody need take a call whilst driving. That's the beauty of mobile phones: they can receive messages and you can call people back later in safety.

 

Frankly, I think it makes certain peope feel important to be seen on a mobile whilst driving. Either that or it's a form of comfort, like a dummy or a favourite teddy bear.

Bet you have a crap job with no important role, Dont have a girlfriend that loves you, or family that cares for you, why would you need 2 hands to drive a mordern auto car:huh:

[SimpyTimpy 10]

"only 4 deaths is really really insignificant"

 

Once again, the KSI rates tell only part of the story. Bad driving frequently has victims even if nobody's hurt.

 

Speeding drivers were the number 1 concern of the public in a British Crime Survey:

 

http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsandevents/releases/PR3936.aspx

 

 

 

We need a brutal anti-mobile advert like this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr12R30ouHc&feature=player_embedded

 

Safe For Work but pretty horrible.

 

Understand you here, and I do think an advertising campaign similar to what has been used for drink driving would be effective.

 

Speeding drivers isn't directly related to mobile phone use though, and I'm sure that results in more deaths.