Forum home Road cycling forum Campaign

Drivers ignore mobile ban-escape censure.

rothbookrothbook Posts: 943
edited July 2007 in Campaign
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6244040.stm

Illegal car phone use revealed

Laws were toughened this year
Only one in 6,000 motorists who use their mobile phone while driving in London are caught and fined, according to figures released by the Lib Dems.
The study showed 50 fixed-penalty notices were handed out every day despite 2.6% of people being seen using handheld phones while driving.

Drivers in Hammersmith and Fulham, west London, were the worst offenders with one in 10 breaking the law.

A ban on using handheld mobile phones while driving came into force in 2003.

Penalty points

In February laws were toughened so offenders would face a fixed-penalty fine of œ60 and three penalty points on their licence.

The Metropolitan Police issued 13,581 fixed penalty notices for the offence in 2004.

Lib Dem Shadow Transport Secretary Alistair Carmichael MP said: "Driving and using a handheld mobile phone at the same time is recklessly dangerous to other road users and pedestrians.

PLACES MOST DRIVERS SEEN USING A MOBILE PHONE
Hammersmith and Fulham
Lambeth
Barnet
Southwark
Ealing

"It is deeply concerning that so few drivers doing this are ever caught."

Transport for London commissioned the report to survey the use of mobile phones by car and van drivers at a range of sites in London.

The research was carried out for 43 days, from March 2006, at 33 sites across the city, one site in each borough and one in the City.

According to the study drivers in Kensington and Chelsea were most likely to receive a fine and those in Hillingdon were most likely to escape a penalty.

Posts

  • CometGirlCometGirl Posts: 2,681
    That doesn't surprise me in the least. I was nearly taken out this morning by some stupid man with a phone clamped to the side of his head, presumably to keep his brains in.
  • RegulatorRegulator Posts: 417
    An AirZound blast besides their window is particularly effective, especially if combined with yelling "Get off the phone you prat!", I find... [:D]

    ___________________________
    censored elephants - capabari are cuter!
    ___________________________
    censored elephants - capabari are cuter!
  • The EndorserThe Endorser Posts: 191
    I was the first [person in aour farce to issue an endorsable FPN for that, and the second one I wrothe the silly woman also did not have a valid licence. ooops!

    <i><b>Eating baby elephants since 1969</b></i>
    <i><b>Commute - you might even enjoy it!</b></i>
  • ian_oliian_oli Posts: 763
    A check out girl at our local supermarket told my wife the other day that several people a week are in her queue just pretending to make a call - wonder how many drivers do that
  • Spikey_DavidSpikey_David Posts: 449
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by The Endorser</i>

    I was the first [person in aour farce to issue an endorsable FPN for that, and the second one I wrothe the <b>silly</b> woman also did not have a valid licence. ooops!

    <i><b>Eating baby elephants since 1969</b></i>
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
    Its not <b>silly</b> its <b>dangerous</b>. The sooner people realise this the better. It upsets me that the police etc allow such widespread dangerous driving, to the point where <s>like speeding</s> its considered acceptable by many drivers, and then any fines imposed are labeled as stealth taxes.

    PS. Refference to speeding is deleted as I gather its now a taboo subject on this forum.
  • pzycomanpzycoman Posts: 285
    Iv been thinking about buying a mobile phone jammer, but I was told they are illegal to use in the UK [:(] - Shame because I found a nice portable one for about 160, range of 10-20 meters...would be quite nice to just turn it on and keep it in my jersey...
    Professional Kitten Huffer
  • The EndorserThe Endorser Posts: 191
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Spikey_David</i>Its not <b>silly</b> its <b>dangerous</b>.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yeah, I agree, but I was being polite.

    <i><b>Eating baby elephants since 1969</b></i>
    <i><b>Commute - you might even enjoy it!</b></i>
  • CabCab Posts: 770
    The sad reality is that many road safety laws are just not enforced. Why did anyone think that this new one would be any different?



    <i>Free baby elephants for every citizen</i>
    Vote Arch for Prime Minister
  • The EndorserThe Endorser Posts: 191
    Did any one think it would be any different?

    <i><b>Eating baby elephants since 1969</b></i>
    <i><b>Commute - you might even enjoy it!</b></i>
  • CabCab Posts: 770
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by The Endorser</i>

    Did any one think it would be any different?
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    I dunno, maybe they didn't [:)]




    <i>Free baby elephants for every citizen</i>
    Vote Arch for Prime Minister
  • The latest generation of speed cameras take a piccy from the front to get the drivers face. Possibly about one in five of these will show the driver on the phone, will this be 3 more points as well as the ones for speeding?

    Bikes are traffic.
    Bikes are traffic.
  • Spikey_DavidSpikey_David Posts: 449
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by The Endorser</i>

    Did any one think it would be any different?
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
    No, but we can hope!

    Sadly I don't think the police and legal system take road safety seriously. Many drivers blatently and routinely ignore the law, including speeding, mobile phones, red lights, stop lines, give-way junctions, bus-lanes, ASLs, mandoratory cycle lanes, etc. Then when there is an RTA, you have to go out of your way to find an open police station and then argue before they will bother to fill in the paper-work.
  • The EndorserThe Endorser Posts: 191
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Spikey_David</i>

    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by The Endorser</i>

    Did any one think it would be any different?
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then when there is an RTA, you have to go out of your way to find an open police station and then argue before they will bother to fill in the paper-work.

    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Cos if there's no injury, and no obstruction to the flow of traffic (and no offences disclosed) it' not a police matter. There's a duty to report it, but, conversely, no remit for the police to do anything with it, so no - they probably won't take any interest if you wonder into a nick (if you can find one that's not closed due to budget restrictions) to tell them you got rear ended at the lights if tht's where the story ends.

    The police take it very seriosuly, but if I told you how many traffic crs were out last night for the entire force area upon which I work (you could count then on less than half the fingers of one hand) you'll see that it's a resoucing issue that goe beyond 'the police'. You'll see plenty of camera vans, becuase hat form of speed enforcemnt is self funding, and what chief constable will say no to some of that for free?

    It's a job or central government to solve with funding and policy, that won't be resolved by caning the poor schmucks saddled with doing the best of a very bad job.

    <i><b>Eating baby elephants since 1969</b></i>
    <i><b>Commute - you might even enjoy it!</b></i>
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    I think numbers have reduced lately ? Or is that just me ?
  • The EndorserThe Endorser Posts: 191
    official line is 'no', but i think so - 2/3 of my staff are now PCSOs - to a man and woman they genuinely try to do a goo job, but they ain't no woddentop.

    <i><b>Eating baby elephants since 1969</b></i>
    <i><b>Commute - you might even enjoy it!</b></i>
  • psuttonpsutton Posts: 206
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Regulator</i>

    An AirZound blast besides their window is particularly effective, especially if combined with yelling "Get off the phone you prat!", I find... [:D]

    ___________________________
    censored elephants - capabari are cuter!
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    If I see someone driving with a mobile clamped to their ear I try to make eye contact and then lift 3 fingers (as in 3 points) just in case it registers and changes their behaviour. I've got a helmet cam now so I point to that too (but I've never got good enough footage to sned off anywhere - one day...).
  • MithrasMithras Posts: 428
    One of the biggest problems is that to catch these people they have to be half asleep. These mobiles are so small and the big LDV van I usually drive with the blue and yellow squares on it and big blue lights on the top is a bit of a give away....they drop the phone before I see them. Only ones I've caught so far have been whilst I've been driving an unmarked vehicle!

    Mithras, God of the Midnight, here where the great bull dies,
    Look on thy children in darkness. Oh take our sacrifice!
    Many roads thou hast fashioned-all of them lead to the Light,
    Mithras, also a soldier, teach us to die aright!
    Rudyard Kipling
    I can afford to talk softly!....................I carry a big stick!
  • What gets me about this is that a lot of them are driving very expensive cars.
    If they can afford the car how come they can't afford to fit a hands free kit!!!!!!
    At least that would give them two hands on the wheel, it would just be the lack of concentration on the road.

    I still see quite a lot using them around here, and some still texting. Beyond belief!!

    george

    _________________________________
    Trips
    South America
    www.pedalpatagonia.co.uk
    Europe
    http://europejibi.googlepages.com
  • I absolutely agree.
    A Bluetooth hands free kit would cost less than a tank of petrol for God's sake, never mind a car.
  • PringlecpPringlecp Posts: 771
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cougie</i>

    I think numbers have reduced lately ? Or is that just me ?


    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    Could be - This is anecdotal, but I have noticed a real rise locally (Twickenham) in the last few months [:(]

    Another year older, another Budweiser
    Another year older, another Budweiser
  • PringlecpPringlecp Posts: 771
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pzycoman</i>

    Iv been thinking about buying a mobile phone jammer, but I was told they are <i>illegal</i> to use in the UK [:(] - Shame because I found a nice portable one for about 160, range of 10-20 meters...would be quite nice to just turn it on and keep it in my jersey...
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    its also illegal to drive while talking on the hands held
    Some of these blockers work upto 1000m!!! no wonder they are illegal
    http://www.spymodex.com/jammer000.htm

    Another year older, another Budweiser
    Another year older, another Budweiser
  • What i don't get - how do they <i>know</i> these other 5,999 drivers are using their mobiles at the wheel if they haven't managed to catch them? Are the police admitting that they're actually really cr<i></i>ap at catching people in london, if they see 6,000 people using their phones but only manage to catch one?
  • ArchcpArchcp Posts: 8,987
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by formerlyknownasbonj</i>

    What i don't get - how do they <i>know</i> these other 5,999 drivers are using their mobiles at the wheel if they haven't managed to catch them? Are the police admitting that they're actually really cr<i></i>ap at catching people in london, if they see 6,000 people using their phones but only manage to catch one?

    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    As I read it, the figure of 6000 comes from a study commissioned by TfL. They had people sitting at 33 sites, over the course of 43 days, who will have counted the number of vehicles that passed, and how many of those were driven by people also using a phone, to give a percentage. Then they check the number against the number of tickets given out. So it's not that the police see 6000 using the phone and only book 1.

    It's all in the post, if you care to read it and use a bit of common sense... Oh.

    If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.
    If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.
  • CometGirlCometGirl Posts: 2,681
    Ssssh, Arch!

    No, Bonj, they station policemen on major roads, and they have to count six thousand motorists on the phone before they're allowed to go and nick one. It's similar to bingo.

    The game is that few officers can get to 6000 without needing a wee-break. Or running out of fingers.

    It's true, you know.
  • The EndorserThe Endorser Posts: 191
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mithras</i> These mobiles are so small and the big LDV van I usually drive with the blue and yellow squares on it and big blue lights on the top is a bit of a give away<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">sneak up close and give them a dose of the wailers! this works especilly well at night for tw4ts ith no lights - ifthe hock doesn't give them a coronary, then they'll poo their pants!

    <i><b>Eating baby elephants since 1969</b></i>
    <i><b>Commute - you might even enjoy it!</b></i>
  • <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by CometGirl</i>

    Ssssh, Arch!

    No, Bonj, they station policemen on major roads, and they have to count six thousand motorists on the phone before they're allowed to go and nick one. It's similar to bingo.

    The game is that few officers can get to 6000 without needing a wee-break. Or running out of fingers.

    It's true, you know.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
    Ha ha, that's really funny! No wonder you're called ComicGirl.

    I bet you can't sing either.
  • FAO The Endorser. The other thread will be deleted in the morning (by the Opinion Police), and I thought my post in there was so good that it deserved to be cross-posted in a thread that wouldn't be censored out of existence. So here it is:

    <hr noshade size="1">
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by The Endorser</i>

    Th stats are flawed anyway. As a hard done by copper, it's one of my jobs to deal with RTCs (unless i can order one of my minions to do it for me), and as such we're at the coalface collecting the data from which the govt, and others, come up with their stats.

    Anyway, in all but the most very, very serious such incidents, perhaps as few as 1 in 500, there is no scientific accident investigation, so how the hell does anyone know whether speed is a factor?

    From my own observational experience, I would say it is - all the obvious arguments about reduced opportunities for safe reaction as speed increases, and the disipation of kinetic energy can easily be observed first hand, but to put an actual number on such incidents, when only a tiny fraction is minutely examined is plain preposterous. 88% of people know that!
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
    Psychology in road safety is far, far more important than physics. And all fatal accidents are investigated thoroughly. Only 12% of those accidents involve any speeding vehicles, and of those, many were drunk, illegal, joyriding and/or escaping from police.

    When you turn up to an RTC, I suspect it's usually something like "He overtook in a stupid place", "She didn't look before pulling out", etc, etc. Sometimes it'll be "He was going too fast for the conditions". But how often is it "He was going at 70 in a 60, which was too fast, and if he'd just been going at exactly 60 or below, he would have been OK"? Virtually none of the time I would have thought. There's virtually always an obvious main cause which renders the posted speed limit irrelevant.

    However you try to twist it, the number of accidents caused by speeding drivers who are otherwise law-abiding, because they are speeding, is vanishingly small. And yet cameras can only do anything whatsoever about drivers with registered cars who are going over the posted limit; going too fast for the conditions within the limit, dangerous overtaking, and ALL other causes of accidents are not helped in the slightest by silly devices that take photographs.

    And making out that "speeding" increases the severity of all types of accidents is disingenuous: firstly, it's going too fast for the conditions rather than speeding, and secondly, it's far better to try and avoid the accident altogether in the first place, rather than assuming that it's inevitable and trying to make sure it "only" occurs at 60mph or whatever. It will never be possible to STOP the other types of accidents with cameras, or even lessen the impact most of the time. You have to tackle the cause of each type of accident. There are no shortcuts and you can't automate or simplify the enforcement process.

    If you really, genuinely, truly and honestly want to know more, this is not the place, as there are too many trolls with a set-in-stone anti-car agenda. All the answers to your questions and much much more are at http://www. . Assuming that you really are a police officer, I'm sure you genuinely want safer roads for everyone, and that you don't have an anti-car or power-trip agenda. If that's the case, I urge you to at least visit the forum a few times, post a few questions, and make up your mind when in possession of all the facts. There are other police officers there and they haven't got into trouble. One of them was even in favour of cameras until he saw the light. You know it makes sense. [;)]
  • Tourist TonyTourist Tony Posts: 8,628
    Bye bye Paul!

    If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or censored
    If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or censored
    http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3 ... =3244&v=5K
  • MassimoMassimo Posts: 318
    You absolutely must never do this 'cos it's very naughty!!! If you see someone on a their mobile, tell them you're a cop - it always works (apparently, so I've heard, wouldn't do it myself of course) :wink:
    Crash 'n Burn, Peel 'n Chew
    FCN: 2
Sign In or Register to comment.