Driving and mobile phones.

[Workingman]

Leicestershire police have released a film of the aftermath of a fatal crash caused by a driver texting on her mobile on the M1. The pictures are shocking and the woman who caused the incident was jailed for five years.

It all coincides with news that using mobiles while driving will now get double the ban and double the points. At last! I hear some of you cry.

But hang on. As a driver and a pedestrian I see these idiots all the time. They are everywhere! Plod and PCSOs must also see them, but without photographic evidence what can they do? Motorised cops must also see them, but again, without evidence what can they do but issue a verbal?

And while they are at it what are they going to do about pedestrians who are totally oblivious to their surroundings when listening to music or thumbing their smartphones for the latest must have twitbook update?

These are serious offences and we can make the penalties as Draconian as we like, but if we cannot catch them in the act there is little point.

[Suff]

WM the police, if they think it's serious enough, can arrest the person, take the phone for analysis and get the phone records with will prove the offence more efficiently than any video record although corroborating video record of the offender driving at the time is usually a cast iron way of getting the proof.

The fact that they haven't is the reality that accidents and fatal accidents are no more common with phoning or texting than they are with for instance, drink, drugs, lack of concentration, falling asleep or simply doing something stupid like trying to get something form the back seat whilst driving. In fact texting and phoning are probably way down the list against these others and are policed accordingly.

However using your mobile or texting is simple to police, simple to prove and, now, carries a high penalty which gives the police brownie points. Leaving the rest of us to deal with the drinkers, druggies (biggest problem on the roads today), sleep drivers and people who can't keep their eyes on the road.

Your point about the pedestrians is very valid. Pedestrians cause accidents and sometimes fatal accidents every day by being complete idiots. But they don't have a license to walk (perhaps some of them should) and proving their guilt can, in the absence of significant video evidence, be extremely hard. Meaning that people who wantonly cause deaths are walking around with no censure every single day.

It's a minefield but every time I see a high profile change like this the only thought which comes to mind is that they are failing somewhere else and want to make a big story. Such is my lack of faith in the Police today, abetted by hearing what goes on inside the police...

We already have two crimes. Driving without due care and attention and dangerous driving. These two, eminently sensible, crimes cover everything form texting to driving whilst looking elsewhere or not paying attention. The severity of the punishment comes from what the person being charged caused. So, for instance, if you kill someone whilst texting it is dangerous driving and should also cover manslaughter. However if you are sitting in a car at traffic lights and are sending a text and don't start again, causing motorists to miss the lights, that is driving without due care and attention and, maybe, worth 1 point and a slap on the wrist.

It's like banning knives of a certain type. Personally I've never seen a knife get up and kill someone. It's not the knife, it is the person and the wilful intent of the person.

For me the law has gone like wordism. Ban the word not the intent or attitude. Ban phoning or texting (totally), not phoning or texting in a dangerous situation (driving in town which requires full attention).

However I shall pay attention and make sure I'm not doing this where it is banned. In the US you eat, drink, phone, text, facebook all in your car. If you cause a problem it's your personal responsibility and you are punished for it. The idea is to not cause a problem, rather than creating blanket bans.

I do wonder, though, how they are going to deal with the new "smart" cars which read your texts to you, take replies via voice, read you FB to you and take replies by voice. That's going to make this whole thing a nightmare when the first fatal accident happens and it's proven that the person was texting or FBing only to find they were just talking to the car. Of course they'll be convicted of holding a handset in their hands and pressing buttons. What more can we expect, the "action" has been banned....

[Workingman]

We already have two crimes. Driving without due care and attention and dangerous driving. These two, eminently sensible, crimes cover everything form texting to driving whilst looking elsewhere or not paying attention. The severity of the punishment comes from what the person being charged caused. So, for instance, if you kill someone whilst texting it is dangerous driving and should also cover manslaughter. However if you are sitting in a car at traffic lights and are sending a text and don't start again, causing motorists to miss the lights, that is driving without due care and attention and, maybe, worth 1 point and a slap on the wrist.

Absolutely true and pretty much what I was saying all those years back when the law was being introduced. We have generalised laws covering all the main categories of crimes and some include sub categories, but the top level usually works as a 'catch all' from which the lower levels can be prosecuted. Burglary and Rape are good examples. So we have Burglary, aggravated burglary and attempted burglary. Similarly we have Rape, aggravated rape and date rape. We do not need top level laws for all crimes, the law books would stack higher then the Shard, and then some.

[AliasAggers]

This is a very difficult subject, as drivers are not all alike, some being able to still drive safely while coping with distractions.

During my 70-odd years of accident-free driving, I was quite happy to have non-aggressive music playing, but I could not tolerate someone talking on the radio, or having a too-talkative passenger, as I felt it necessary to concentrate exclusively on the driving.

In my opinion there is only one feasible answer to this problem. Increase the punishments to much higher levels.

[Workingman]

This is a very difficult subject, as drivers are not all alike, some being able to still drive safely while coping with distractions.

During my 70-odd years of accident-free driving, I was quite happy to have non-aggressive music playing, but I could not tolerate someone talking on the radio, or having a too-talkative passenger, as I felt it necessary to concentrate exclusively on the driving.

In my opinion there is only one feasible answer to this problem. Increase the punishments to much higher levels.

I do not disagree, per se, but as I and Suff have said you have to catch the perpetrators first. We then need to let the courts decide the punishment, be it a fine, points, or a ban, even jail. We do not need specific laws for specific crimes or misdemeanours.

[Suff]

It's funny you should say that Aggers. Personally I don't apply my mind to driving that much so distractions are not that much of a problem to me. Driving at 30mph my mind is all over the place and I'm much more likely to miss something happening than I would be at a higher speed although my reactions are fast so I have avoided the issues over the years. I'm only ever fully alert and totally focused when on the Autobahns driving well over 100mph, because it requires that and it's quite exhausting too.

I've had two very clear situations where my reactions have saved the lives of everyone I the car, as well as myself, both times another driver was being totally ridiculous, overtaking on my side of the road at incredible speed (upwards of 80mph on a two way road). The first time my mother was very surprised because she had not driven with me much and she told me the only reason we were there was because of the near instantaneous reactions. I didn't know, I just braked hard and moved, as I do. The second instance was really bad because I came over a blind rise to find headlights in my lane and nowhere to go, the other oncoming vehicle, in his lane, was a fuel tanker, would have been a nasty accident and if I had not braked really hard and pretty much instantly we would have been hit, it was that close.

So when they make laws for specific incidents it just makes my blood boil. My take is that you drive to what is comfortable for you. As you say Aggers you would match your environment to your comfort levels when driving. I can talk to a passenger or on the phone, without taking my concentration off the road. If you drive an automatic then even holding the phone with one hand is not an issue as you only need one hand to drive the car. There are so many different situations it's total nannying to try and create one blanket law for everything.

Texting whilst driving is one of the most dangerous things you can do. Yes I've sent a two word answer when I've had 3 lanes of a motorway to myself, but I'd never even consider it where there was traffic and corners and what you'd call normal driving. Even then you need the phone over the wheel and you need to look over the phone, to the road, to be even approximately safe. Most people text in their laps, mind boggling...

The problem, as I see it, is how do they deal with the so called "smart" cars? I was listening to the ads on the radio a few weeks back about the Hyundai being able to read your FB posts to you. If you have an accident, totally not your fault, whilst the car is connected to your phone and talking to you, you're going to be done for it.

The whole thing is a minefield. If they had just left it at the sensible laws then APPLIED them sensibly, it would have been so much easier. Then they could double or triple the fines for those really driving without due care and attention or dangerously.