Worse than drink-driving: are YOU in our mobile phone gallery? (From Thisisdorset)
When news happens send us your pictures, video and views. Text BE to 80360 or contact us by email
Worse than drink-driving: are YOU in our mobile phone gallery?
8:45am Wednesday 18th April 2012 in News Exclusive By Paula Roberts
Worse than drink-driving: are YOU in our mobile phone gallery?
IT’S more dangerous than drink-driving and yet thousands of motorists are still putting lives at risk by using their mobile phones behind the wheel.
The Echo went out to see how many people we could catch using their phones at the wheel at Cemetery Junction - and we repeatedly saw drivers breaking the law. See the full gallery here.
The county’s top traffic cop says talking, texting or looking at something on a phone while driving is extremely distracting and reminded drivers: “No call is worth taking behind the wheel.”
Last year 3,504 motorists were caught using their phones behind the wheel in Dorset – up from the 3,229 nabbed in 2010 and a 91 per cent increase on those caught in 2007 when the legislation was introduced.
The Institute of Advanced Motorists say these figures are just the tip of the iceberg with eight per cent of drivers admitting to using smartphones for email and social networking while driving – equivalent to a staggering 3.5 million licence holders across the country.
It reports using smartphones while driving is more dangerous than drink-driving or being high on cannabis behind the wheel.
Research has found texting on a mobile phone slows reaction times by 37.4 per cent and while driving alcohol at the legal limit slows reaction times by 12.5 per cent and cannabis by 21 per cent.
Chief Inspector Bob Nichols, of Dorset Police’s traffic unit, pictured inset, said: “Our message really is quite simple. The degree of distraction it causes is very serious.
“No call is worth taking behind the wheel.
“We have dealt with a number of fatal collisions over the years where we know that the use of a mobile phone was the cause or a significant factor in the collision.
Chf Insp Nichols said Dorset Police’s No Excuse campaign had helped spread the message that using a mobile phone while driving was illegal and people doing it would get caught.
Tackling motorists who use phones while driving is a priority for Dorset Police, who say driver distraction is one of the four main contributory factors in the severity of road collisions – known as the fatal four. The others are excessive and inappropriate speeds, drink or drug driving and not wearing a seat belt.
Chf Insp Nichols said drivers caught on their phones often came up with some “bizarre” excuses.
He said: “One driver was looking at pictures on his mobile phone and said it was OK because he wasn’t using the phone to text or call.”
They have also caught a new driver who had wedged their mobile phone in the steering wheel; and woman eating chips and curry sauce while texting and driving.
Anyone caught using a phone while driving will receive three penalty points on their licence and a £60 fine. Some motorists are offered the opportunity to take part in the Driver Awareness Course at a cost of £105 instead of having points.
The number of fixed-penalty tickets issued to drivers caught using a hand-held mobile phone were:
• 2007: 1,837
• 2008: 1,716
• 2009: 2,150
• 2010: 3,229
• 2011: 3,502
• 2012 (Jan and Feb): 452
In 2009 Gwent Police produced a dramatic video aimed at showing teeenagers the danger of texting and driving. We have embedded it below. It's very graphic, so if you have young children, check it before you let them watch it.
Comments(86)
pete woodley
says...
9:09am Wed 18 Apr 12
High Treason
says...
9:14am Wed 18 Apr 12
BarrHumbug
says...
9:16am Wed 18 Apr 12
Upkeep
says...
9:18am Wed 18 Apr 12
saynomore
says...
9:18am Wed 18 Apr 12
whataboutthat
says...
9:18am Wed 18 Apr 12
benjamin
says...
9:27am Wed 18 Apr 12
InkZ
says...
9:27am Wed 18 Apr 12
There's really no excuse to not have hands free, you can buy them for £15 to clip on your sunvisor and it will save you a fine, or hitting someone. Amazon or Play are great places to buy these.
whataboutthat
says...
9:28am Wed 18 Apr 12
termau69
says...
9:34am Wed 18 Apr 12
BarrHumbug
says...
9:44am Wed 18 Apr 12
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
termau69
says...
9:50am Wed 18 Apr 12
BarrHumbug wrote:Yet someone else trying to use percentages to back up a comment it really means nothing, the fact is the report highlights that drivers are still prepared to endanger peoples lives by using mobiles how can you say its a half hearted report
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
Upkeep
says...
9:59am Wed 18 Apr 12
BarrHumbug wrote:Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then.
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
2007...1837 cases
2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.
termau69
says...
10:25am Wed 18 Apr 12
Upkeep wrote:Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol
BarrHumbug wrote:Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then.
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
2007...1837 cases
2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.
Phixer
says...
10:26am Wed 18 Apr 12
Says who? People using a mobile phone at least have their faculties about them. Drunk and drugged drivers won't even know what planet they are on.
Another detailed accurate Echo report to make a headline and sell papers - not about road safety.
BarrHumbug
says...
10:28am Wed 18 Apr 12
termau69 wrote:Its a half hearted report because it only reports the story from one side, the scaremongering "don't go outside, you'll die" type of reporting that the papers and media like to stuff down our throats. We all know people still do it, in the same way they also speed or drink and drive but its the governments and polices job to educate us of the dangers and enforce the law so as to reduce the number of people doing it. Without any correlating figures it just makes it look like all drivers do it and that the police are failing in their duty.
BarrHumbug wrote:Yet someone else trying to use percentages to back up a comment it really means nothing, the fact is the report highlights that drivers are still prepared to endanger peoples lives by using mobiles how can you say its a half hearted report
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
What would you think if this story said that funding cancer research is a waste of money because people are still dying from it?
Sgt McNutt
says...
10:35am Wed 18 Apr 12
The Liberal
says...
10:46am Wed 18 Apr 12
BmthNewshound
says...
10:49am Wed 18 Apr 12
.
It wasn't that long ago that drinking and driving was seen as acceptable. It was only after tougher laws and enforcement was introduced and years of government advertising campaigns that people have finally accepted that drinking and driving is not only illegal but socially unacceptable.
.
They should also crack down on people sticking sat navs on their windscreen and make them audio-only.
BarrHumbug
says...
10:49am Wed 18 Apr 12
termau69 wrote:Ahh termau69 you've now got the point. EXACTLY what I was making in my first comment, the paper has manipulated the figure to portray the report to how they want it to be read.
Upkeep wrote:Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol
BarrHumbug wrote:Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then.
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
2007...1837 cases
2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.
As for the Police's figures UpKeep well you also have to take into account that over that period the forces have had to face budget cuts and a reduction in officers but are no doubt expected to keep up or increase on their solved crime figures. The motorist is always an easy target for bolstering those figures?
ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH
says...
10:51am Wed 18 Apr 12
termau69
says...
11:00am Wed 18 Apr 12
BarrHumbug wrote:Dont be so patronising i never mentioned the Echo using figures as it is irrelevent the point is its illegal and dangerous and the more it gets highlighted the more chance of saving injuries to other road users and as for Phixers comment the driver who would have hit me if i hadnt reversed had no idea who was where the concentration was on the phone not on the road
termau69 wrote:Ahh termau69 you've now got the point. EXACTLY what I was making in my first comment, the paper has manipulated the figure to portray the report to how they want it to be read.
Upkeep wrote:Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol
BarrHumbug wrote:Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then.
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
2007...1837 cases
2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.
As for the Police's figures UpKeep well you also have to take into account that over that period the forces have had to face budget cuts and a reduction in officers but are no doubt expected to keep up or increase on their solved crime figures. The motorist is always an easy target for bolstering those figures?
Upkeep
says...
11:14am Wed 18 Apr 12
Once you`ve seen that video you will never want to use a mobile whilst driving. Facts and statistics are irrelevent.
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=pDOmwjgKB
cI
beachcomber1
says...
11:18am Wed 18 Apr 12
ashleycross
says...
11:21am Wed 18 Apr 12
John T
says...
11:26am Wed 18 Apr 12
whataboutthat wrote:I claim the Fifth Amendment.
Is it a survey or a confessional? Nobody's going to tick yes - are they?
BarrHumbug
says...
11:34am Wed 18 Apr 12
termau69 wrote:If you think figures are irrelevant then surely Upkeep's comment is irrelevant too? But you were quick to praise their comments against mine?
BarrHumbug wrote:Dont be so patronising i never mentioned the Echo using figures as it is irrelevent the point is its illegal and dangerous and the more it gets highlighted the more chance of saving injuries to other road users and as for Phixers comment the driver who would have hit me if i hadnt reversed had no idea who was where the concentration was on the phone not on the road
termau69 wrote:Ahh termau69 you've now got the point. EXACTLY what I was making in my first comment, the paper has manipulated the figure to portray the report to how they want it to be read.
Upkeep wrote:Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol
BarrHumbug wrote:Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then.
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
2007...1837 cases
2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.
As for the Police's figures UpKeep well you also have to take into account that over that period the forces have had to face budget cuts and a reduction in officers but are no doubt expected to keep up or increase on their solved crime figures. The motorist is always an easy target for bolstering those figures?
Figures aren't irrelevant, I could just as easily go down there tomorrow take a picture of 10 drivers not using their phone and write a story saying that there is a zero rate of laws being broken, but then that's not very interesting journalism is it, nor is it fair or accurate? Far better to write a scaremongering story that all road users are killers!
The story is also inaccurate because it has been proved that using a smart phone emailing, texting and updating social networks while driving is more dangerous than drink driving, not just talking on a phone and yet the paper have chosen to use that headline grabbing title and applied it to every person on there phone. How many of the people they snapped were using a smart phone and how many of those were emailing/texting/upd
ating social networks?
Like I originally said I don't condone it, its wrong. But my gripe is with the paper taking the facts, discarding the parts that don't suit and running it under a headline to create a maximum effect.
Upkeep
says...
11:44am Wed 18 Apr 12
"Like I originally said I don't condone it, its wrong. But my gripe is with the paper taking the facts, discarding the parts that don't suit and running it under a headline to create a maximum effect."
Are there any papers that dont do that ?
mikey2gorgeous
says...
11:59am Wed 18 Apr 12
Given the figures above on the effect on reaction times, someone driving at 30 who's at the drink/drive limit will stop in 117 feet instead of 109 sober.
At 35 a sober driver will take 136 feet (http://www.csgnetwo
rk.com/stopdistinfo.
html). Lots of commenters on this site say 35 is 'only just' over the limit and prosecuting people for doing 37 in a 30 zone is a 'war on the motorist' or a 'tax'.
At 35 in a 30 you are taking the same risks with other people's lives as if you were well over the drink limit. Yet somehow it's considered a 'lesser' evil - something that's acceptable not for the immoral behaviour it really is.
hammer
says...
12:17pm Wed 18 Apr 12
mikey2gorgeous
says...
12:25pm Wed 18 Apr 12
hammer wrote:It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous.
Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
Mindvor
says...
12:45pm Wed 18 Apr 12
hammer wrote:We need an alternative to Godwin's Law. Its usually about a page or so of comments before any Echo discussion turns to "cyclists".
Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
Won't someone think of the children!?
Pablo23
says...
1:10pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Young ladies applying their makup in the rear view mirror whilst driving, people reading maps, people making sandwiches on the move.
Is there really so little spare time in the mornings?
ekimnoslen
says...
1:10pm Wed 18 Apr 12
BarrHumbug
says...
1:15pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Upkeep wrote:No. I like to have a go at them all! LOL
BarrHumbug says
"Like I originally said I don't condone it, its wrong. But my gripe is with the paper taking the facts, discarding the parts that don't suit and running it under a headline to create a maximum effect."
Are there any papers that dont do that ?
Yawwwn!
says...
1:27pm Wed 18 Apr 12
termau69
says...
2:07pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Yawwwn! wrote:Well of course why didnt we think of that we are the stupid ones
The Daily Echo is implying these people are guilty, but how do they know the drivers were not calling 999 as an emergency call? That is allowed whilst you are driving. If anyone was making an emergency call...you could probably sue The Daily Echo.
termau69
says...
2:16pm Wed 18 Apr 12
BarrHumbug wrote:It must be me but if you can go and get pictures to prove a point surely that shows that they can be manipulated to your advantage thus then being worthless antway if you are happy thats all that matters what i do not understand is that any publicity of this kind must be a good thing but people still want to have a pop at the Echo which i have in the past but i think its an appropriate storynot scaremongering at all but you choose to translate it as such
termau69 wrote:If you think figures are irrelevant then surely Upkeep's comment is irrelevant too? But you were quick to praise their comments against mine?
BarrHumbug wrote:Dont be so patronising i never mentioned the Echo using figures as it is irrelevent the point is its illegal and dangerous and the more it gets highlighted the more chance of saving injuries to other road users and as for Phixers comment the driver who would have hit me if i hadnt reversed had no idea who was where the concentration was on the phone not on the road
termau69 wrote:Ahh termau69 you've now got the point. EXACTLY what I was making in my first comment, the paper has manipulated the figure to portray the report to how they want it to be read.
Upkeep wrote:Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol
BarrHumbug wrote:Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then.
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
2007...1837 cases
2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.
As for the Police's figures UpKeep well you also have to take into account that over that period the forces have had to face budget cuts and a reduction in officers but are no doubt expected to keep up or increase on their solved crime figures. The motorist is always an easy target for bolstering those figures?
Figures aren't irrelevant, I could just as easily go down there tomorrow take a picture of 10 drivers not using their phone and write a story saying that there is a zero rate of laws being broken, but then that's not very interesting journalism is it, nor is it fair or accurate? Far better to write a scaremongering story that all road users are killers!
The story is also inaccurate because it has been proved that using a smart phone emailing, texting and updating social networks while driving is more dangerous than drink driving, not just talking on a phone and yet the paper have chosen to use that headline grabbing title and applied it to every person on there phone. How many of the people they snapped were using a smart phone and how many of those were emailing/texting/upd
ating social networks?
Like I originally said I don't condone it, its wrong. But my gripe is with the paper taking the facts, discarding the parts that don't suit and running it under a headline to create a maximum effect.
Justin666
says...
2:24pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Actually the Concil has solved the problem of sleeping policemen (Bumps) By simply allowing the roads to deteriorate it is almost impossible to drive faster than 20mph. Unless you are prepared to totally trash your car.
I dont agree with mobile use in cars but it is certainly not to be compared with drink driving.
Schooners
says...
2:41pm Wed 18 Apr 12
www.facebook.com/Cap
tainHonkOff
HONK OFF is a road safety campaign designed specifically at shaming Mobile Drivers into no longer breaking the law.
HONK OFF is an open group to all and has the support of 'Road Safety'.
Say-it-how-it-is
says...
3:15pm Wed 18 Apr 12
mikey2gorgeous wrote:Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.
hammer wrote:It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous.
Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
mikey2gorgeous
says...
3:20pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Say-it-how-it-is wrote:Not according to the government website: (http://www.direct.g
mikey2gorgeous wrote:Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.
hammer wrote:It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous.
Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
ov.uk/en/TravelAndTr
ansport/Roadsafetyad
vice/DG_188761)
I've been told by the police that it's totally illegal to ride 2 abreast. On 2 separate occasions! Also that a witnessed, physical assault on me by a motorist was 'not a prosecutable offence'
Don't believe everything the Police tell you!
Merleyman
says...
3:22pm Wed 18 Apr 12
As earlier posts have said. Make it a £500 fine for using mobile phone whilst driving.
hammer
says...
3:23pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Say-it-how-it-is wrote:So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
mikey2gorgeous wrote:Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.hammer wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
termau69
says...
3:26pm Wed 18 Apr 12
mikey2gorgeous wrote:It will be nice when there is a cycling blog then the small minority of cycle users who are intent on high-jacking other spaces can have their say and leave the rest of us to the topic concerned which is car drivers
Say-it-how-it-is wrote:Not according to the government website: (http://www.direct.g
mikey2gorgeous wrote:Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.
hammer wrote:It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous.
Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
ov.uk/en/TravelAndTr
ansport/Roadsafetyad
vice/DG_188761)
I've been told by the police that it's totally illegal to ride 2 abreast. On 2 separate occasions! Also that a witnessed, physical assault on me by a motorist was 'not a prosecutable offence'
Don't believe everything the Police tell you!
ragj195
says...
3:54pm Wed 18 Apr 12
termau69 wrote:Yeah, lets not let statistics and facts get in the way of a good story!
BarrHumbug wrote:Yet someone else trying to use percentages to back up a comment it really means nothing, the fact is the report highlights that drivers are still prepared to endanger peoples lives by using mobiles how can you say its a half hearted report
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
Franks Tank
says...
3:59pm Wed 18 Apr 12
hammer
says...
4:23pm Wed 18 Apr 12
mikey2gorgeous wrote:I find it very hard to believe that anyone would want to assault such a nice person as you LOL
Say-it-how-it-is wrote:Not according to the government website: (http://www.direct.g ov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ansport/Roadsafetyad vice/DG_188761) I've been told by the police that it's totally illegal to ride 2 abreast. On 2 separate occasions! Also that a witnessed, physical assault on me by a motorist was 'not a prosecutable offence' Don't believe everything the Police tell you!mikey2gorgeous wrote:Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.hammer wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
hammer
says...
4:54pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Franks Tank wrote:WTF are you on about?
There is a cycling blog. Unfortunately it is regularly hijacked by a motor bike rider with a stack of 78s.
Reader Echo
says...
5:20pm Wed 18 Apr 12
1) Your car will be crushed.
2) You will get a £10,000 fine.
3) You will get a three year ban.
Until the legal system takes a stance like the above nothing will change.
Bmthdad
says...
5:48pm Wed 18 Apr 12
So any moron that uses a phone whilst driving/cycling/moto
rcycling should be deemed unfit to do so and the privilege of being able to use the road removed for a suitable amount of time, and fined heavily.
hrothgar
says...
5:50pm Wed 18 Apr 12
The present law requiring only 3 points endorsed and a small £60 fine is a joke. No Insurance gets 6 points & possibly hundreds of pounds fine. Driving while using a handheld phone should be punished the same as drink driving. And drink driving can mean custody!
termau69
says...
5:51pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Franks Tank wrote:Apologies someone removed my comment because i accused you of derogatory remarks towards The Chewton Bunny people the truth hurts sometimes
There is a cycling blog. Unfortunately it is regularly hijacked by a motor bike rider with a stack of 78s.
Veryhappyincomer
says...
5:52pm Wed 18 Apr 12
l'anglais
says...
5:57pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Reader Echo wrote:How about a good flogging thrown in good measure?
Here is my overnight solution and cure to the problem, if you are caught red handed on camera and it can be proved beyond doubt:
1) Your car will be crushed.
2) You will get a £10,000 fine.
3) You will get a three year ban.
Until the legal system takes a stance like the above nothing will change.
Maybe a bit too liberal for you?
Veryhappyincomer
says...
6:00pm Wed 18 Apr 12
A nice idea by the Echo, but ruined in my opinion by sloppy methodology and insufficient information provided in the story. Perhaps next time they should put someone next to the Wessex Way to take photos of drivers using mobiles. Then the results would have more validity.
Veryhappyincomer
says...
6:06pm Wed 18 Apr 12
mikey2gorgeous wrote:Walk down Lindsay Road in Branksome any morning and you see plenty. It gets scary when some are still using a mobile when they go onto Frizzell Roundabout. Sorry Mikey, cyclists are not all saints.
hammer wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
termau69
says...
6:08pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Veryhappyincomer wrote:So they were all probably sat engines off making 999 calls i love it.They were breaking the law the Echo caught them end of story
The photo's are deceiving. I know that it is illegal to use a hand held mobile phone whilst the engine in running, but how many of these cars were actually moving at the time. If they were taken at Cemetery Junction then I would hazard a guess that three quarters of these vehicles were stationery when the photos were taken. Some may even have had the engines switched off, making their use legal. These photos are proof of precisely nothing.
A nice idea by the Echo, but ruined in my opinion by sloppy methodology and insufficient information provided in the story. Perhaps next time they should put someone next to the Wessex Way to take photos of drivers using mobiles. Then the results would have more validity.
Veryhappyincomer
says...
6:09pm Wed 18 Apr 12
The Liberal wrote:Same here, although I wasn't distracted, more like all over the road. Thank God it was quiet. Never again!
I've only ever used a mobile at the wheel once, on a business trip when somebody in the back seat handed me a phone to take a call from the office. I immediately felt very distracted by it and finished the call quickly. After that I would never be tempted to use a phone at the wheel again.
Rally
says...
6:20pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Phixer wrote:Phixer, I look forward to reading your detailed report on how you know that using a mobile phone when driving is not worse than drink-driving.
"Worse than drink-driving"
Says who? People using a mobile phone at least have their faculties about them. Drunk and drugged drivers won't even know what planet they are on.
Another detailed accurate Echo report to make a headline and sell papers - not about road safety.
termau69
says...
6:24pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Rally wrote:Me too some very strange evaluations of a straight forward report by the Echo for once
Phixer wrote:Phixer, I look forward to reading your detailed report on how you know that using a mobile phone when driving is not worse than drink-driving.
"Worse than drink-driving"
Says who? People using a mobile phone at least have their faculties about them. Drunk and drugged drivers won't even know what planet they are on.
Another detailed accurate Echo report to make a headline and sell papers - not about road safety.
Reader Echo
says...
6:26pm Wed 18 Apr 12
l'anglais wrote:Well L'anglais, I think a good flogging would be fine in addition the other punishments.
Reader Echo wrote:How about a good flogging thrown in good measure?
Here is my overnight solution and cure to the problem, if you are caught red handed on camera and it can be proved beyond doubt:
1) Your car will be crushed.
2) You will get a £10,000 fine.
3) You will get a three year ban.
Until the legal system takes a stance like the above nothing will change.
Maybe a bit too liberal for you?
However in this soft liberal society I don't think it would be allowed.
alasdair1967
says...
6:47pm Wed 18 Apr 12
homerjsimpson1979
says...
6:48pm Wed 18 Apr 12
The Liberal
says...
6:54pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Yawwwn! wrote:According to the advice on the Government website, you should only do so if it's unsafe or impractical to stop – not likely the case for those photographed by the Echo.
The Daily Echo is implying these people are guilty, but how do they know the drivers were not calling 999 as an emergency call? That is allowed whilst you are driving. If anyone was making an emergency call...you could probably sue The Daily Echo.
And to respond to another comment on here, the official advice also states that a driver should only use a handheld phone while safely PARKED (not just stopped in traffic).
paul k
says...
6:54pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Bmthdad
says...
7:01pm Wed 18 Apr 12
alasdair1967 wrote:It's not illegal to use a hands free kit.
right i use my mobile phone whilst driving however i have a fully fitted hands free kit in my van ,when the phone rings i aknowledge the call by pushing a button (the same as changing a radio channel on your car stereo) i then have the conversation with whoever and push a button to end the call when im talking to the caller it is just the same as talking to a passenger in my vehicle but the difference for me is im fully hands free and i dont have the phone to my ear or in my hand if it was illegal for me to use hands free kit why are they allowed to sell them and where do you stop ban conversation in vehicles stop you using your car stereo ?
Where did you get that idea?
alasdair1967
says...
7:10pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Bmthdad wrote:i did say "IF" it was illegal
alasdair1967 wrote:It's not illegal to use a hands free kit.
right i use my mobile phone whilst driving however i have a fully fitted hands free kit in my van ,when the phone rings i aknowledge the call by pushing a button (the same as changing a radio channel on your car stereo) i then have the conversation with whoever and push a button to end the call when im talking to the caller it is just the same as talking to a passenger in my vehicle but the difference for me is im fully hands free and i dont have the phone to my ear or in my hand if it was illegal for me to use hands free kit why are they allowed to sell them and where do you stop ban conversation in vehicles stop you using your car stereo ?
Where did you get that idea?
Reader Echo
says...
7:16pm Wed 18 Apr 12
'a driver seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands free phone can be prosecuted for that offence. The penalties are the same as for using a hand held phone.'
In other words use at your own risk and take the consequences if you kill somebody.
Bmthdad
says...
7:21pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Reader Echo wrote:But it's not ILLEGAL to use a hands free. There has always been an offence of "not in proper control" or "undue care and attention" or similar, that would apply to using make-up or eating or drinking or fiddling with a satnav or radio etc etc
From the AA website:
'a driver seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands free phone can be prosecuted for that offence. The penalties are the same as for using a hand held phone.'
In other words use at your own risk and take the consequences if you kill somebody.
However, it IS illegal to use hand held.
alasdair1967
says...
7:22pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Reader Echo wrote:so what causes the most distraction answering a call or talking to a passenger i will tell you which talking to a passenger its human nature to turn and face the person whom you are talking too thus losing full vision of the road ahead ,we can argue until we are blue in the face too me hands free is no more dangerous than using you r car stereo and yes someone somewhere im sure is trying to ban that !!!
From the AA website:
'a driver seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands free phone can be prosecuted for that offence. The penalties are the same as for using a hand held phone.'
In other words use at your own risk and take the consequences if you kill somebody.
speedy231278
says...
7:55pm Wed 18 Apr 12
termau69
says...
7:59pm Wed 18 Apr 12
speedy231278 wrote:Go to cycling blog
How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?
ragj195
says...
8:09pm Wed 18 Apr 12
homerjsimpson1979 wrote:Pretty sure that they're allowed to with police consent. No different to the wanted board on Crimewatch.
Whats the betting that someone in this gallery sues the Echo for using their photo without consent?
davecook
says...
9:10pm Wed 18 Apr 12
Bournefre
says...
9:44pm Wed 18 Apr 12
benjamin wrote:I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.
I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?
Franks Tank
says...
10:02pm Wed 18 Apr 12
termau69 wrote:I wasn't aware that the truth hurt “The Chewton Bunny people”.
Franks Tank wrote:Apologies someone removed my comment because i accused you of derogatory remarks towards The Chewton Bunny people the truth hurts sometimes
There is a cycling blog. Unfortunately it is regularly hijacked by a motor bike rider with a stack of 78s.
rudestickers
says...
5:43am Thu 19 Apr 12
Bournefre wrote:In the 16+ years I've had a mobile, I've never known or thought it was perfectly acceptable to use it when driving.
benjamin wrote:I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.
I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?
I also think the headline "worse than drink-driving" is a pretty dumb headline.
FNS-man
says...
7:01am Thu 19 Apr 12
rudestickers wrote:Not if you actually read the article.
Bournefre wrote:In the 16+ years I've had a mobile, I've never known or thought it was perfectly acceptable to use it when driving. I also think the headline "worse than drink-driving" is a pretty dumb headline.benjamin wrote: I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.
poolebabe
says...
7:19am Thu 19 Apr 12
rudestickers wrote:I think the headline is supposed to be thought provoking. How many people caught using a mobile phone whilst driving, wouldn't dream of drink driving? I think that's where the comparison is used, but it may be a mistake to do so, unless the penalties are the same.
Bournefre wrote:In the 16+ years I've had a mobile, I've never known or thought it was perfectly acceptable to use it when driving.
benjamin wrote:I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.
I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?
I also think the headline "worse than drink-driving" is a pretty dumb headline.
There are a some people who doubt that using a mobile phone whilst driving is as dangerous, simply because the fines aren't the same. You only have to look at some of the comments to see the attitude, with some people condoning the photographs by saying there is no proof that the cars were running at the time.
Journalism is often sensationalist, but would the echo seriously take photo's of the public and plaster them over the paper if it those people weren't doing anything wrong? It's the Echo, not the Sun lol.
hammer
says...
8:47am Thu 19 Apr 12
speedy231278 wrote:Probably more than were caught using their mobile phones!
How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?
termau69
says...
8:53am Thu 19 Apr 12
hammer wrote:Hammer dear behave or we will have another cyclist war on our hands and i have been banned once already
speedy231278 wrote:Probably more than were caught using their mobile phones!
How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?
BarrHumbug
says...
10:23am Thu 19 Apr 12
FNS-man wrote:No but if you read the article it doesn't mention the fact that using a mobile phone has been proved to be ONLY more dangerous than drink driving when you are actually texting, reading/writing emails or updating your social network. Just talking on the phone has not been found to be more dangerous, obviously whilst trying to negotiate changing gear, corners, roundabouts whilst holding a phone to your ear is still dangerous as you don't have full control of your vehicle but I believe the law was introduced mainly due to the growing popularity of texting, otherwise handsfree kits would be illegal too? If the paper wanted to write a story that was strictly adhering to their headline then it would read "We caught 2 people texting whilst stationary at the traffic lights, had they been moving at the time it would have been more dangerous than drink driving!".
rudestickers wrote:Not if you actually read the article.
Bournefre wrote:In the 16+ years I've had a mobile, I've never known or thought it was perfectly acceptable to use it when driving. I also think the headline "worse than drink-driving" is a pretty dumb headline.benjamin wrote: I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.
hammer
says...
12:19pm Thu 19 Apr 12
termau69 wrote:I know I have been banned as well - I think I have cycling tourettes - I just can't help myself LOL
hammer wrote:Hammer dear behave or we will have another cyclist war on our hands and i have been banned once alreadyspeedy231278 wrote: How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?Probably more than were caught using their mobile phones!
mrhectic
says...
8:44pm Thu 19 Apr 12
Jacamo says...
9:06am Wed 18 Apr 12