Mobile Phone Driving Ban ... PLEASE SIGN

AndyManc

Recived an e-mail today from local cycle groups asking to sign the petition (Link below) .

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/mobilemenaceban/


Extract from the e-mail ...............

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/mobilemenaceban/

please can everyone fill this in.. it takes like a second and i met the
guy that started it yesterday and he was a well amazing guy..spent all
afternoon listening to his well ace stories of riding in races of 6000
people in france across the french alps and how he's been riding and
racing for about 50 years....

he was knocked off his bike by a truck whilst the driver was texting and
was on a life support machine and 2 of his cycling friends were killed in
road accidents due to drivers texting whilst driving and he is desperate
not to let it happen to anyone else...he is well passionate about it in a
really loving and caring way...



.

AllTheGear

Isn't already illegal to use a mobile while driving?

AndyManc

AllTheGear wrote:

Isn't already illegal to use a mobile while driving?

The petition is asking for a driving ban.



.

davmaggs

Whilst the cases quoted are a tragedy I don't think that the answer is a ban. It seems to be one of those things called for by all sorts of lobby groups.

In most criminal cases there are degrees of punishment to reflect the intention and the outcome of an action. A ban is completely binary, and once people you know start losing their jobs because they can no longer drive and at the same time complete lunatics only get points for something far more dangerous then the sense of justice will be out of kilter.

For anyone playing the "but if you don't want to be banned then obey the law" card, then save your typing. Lots of decent people break the law all the time and the use of points and fines gives courts the useful concept of discretion.

Just as not all speeding is dangerous, not all messing about with phones/satnavs/radios/screaming passengers is. I hate it when people do it, but if using an escualting system of fines/points means that we don't end up filling the courts and the dole offices then we probably have something fairer.

AndyManc

davmaggs wrote:

For anyone playing the "but if you don't want to be banned then obey the law" card, then save your typing. Lots of decent people break the law all the time and the use of points and fines gives courts the useful concept of discretion.

Just as not all speeding is dangerous, not all messing about with phones/satnavs/radios/screaming passengers is.

Totally disagree with everything you have said and I'm surprised at that view coming from a 'cyclist' , it's that mindset that all cyclist have to face on the roads each and every day.

The law is clear, .. obey it or lose you license.... it's a simple as that.


.

AllTheGear

AndyManc wrote:

...The law is clear, .. obey it or lose you license.... it's a simple as that...

You've never done 31mph in a 30? 71 in a 70? Parked on double yellows? FIddled with the radio / clock / whatever and taken eyes off the road, given an incorrect signal, braked a bit late for a junction/lights... ?

AndyManc

AllTheGear wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

...The law is clear, .. obey it or lose you license.... it's a simple as that...

You've never done 31mph in a 30? 71 in a 70? Parked on double yellows? FIddled with the radio / clock / whatever and taken eyes off the road, given an incorrect signal, braked a bit late for a junction/lights... ?

First of all, you wouldn't get prosecuted for speeding at that level (allowance is given for speedo inaccuracies), I never 'fiddle' with the radio, parking is a different issue ......

secondly .... you don't 'accidentally' pick a mobile phone up and use it, it's an intentional criminal act.



.

always_tyred

Yes, black and white doesn't work. I think most people will share the sentiment, but the punishment wouldn't necessarily fit the crime.

Now, if some link were established between the severity of the OUTCOME of an offence, rather than the intent, it would be more interesting. Whereas this might appear to address the aftermath of incidents, I wonder if there would be some deterrent value.

CiB

Since when did a petition on the Gov web site have the slightest impact on policy?

AndyManc

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Since when did a petition on the Gov web site have the slightest impact on policy?

Correct , ............ but , it doesn't mean that you should forget about trying to influence and affect change , the more avenues you try ... the more chance of success.


.

Kieran_Burns

AndyManc wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

For anyone playing the "but if you don't want to be banned then obey the law" card, then save your typing. Lots of decent people break the law all the time and the use of points and fines gives courts the useful concept of discretion.

Just as not all speeding is dangerous, not all messing about with phones/satnavs/radios/screaming passengers is.

Totally disagree with everything you have said and I'm surprised at that view coming from a 'cyclist' , it's that mindset that all cyclist have to face on the roads each and every day.

The law is clear, .. obey it or lose you license.... it's a simple as that.


.

and I happen to disagree with you.

What is the point of introducing a new law when there is an existing one that simply isn't enforced enough as it is?

You want to have a driving ban imposedfor a crime because it will presumably act as a greater deterrent, when all you need to do is ACTIVELY enforce the existing one. People use the phone while driving because they are highly unlikely to be caught.

If there was a petition to put more Road Police out there and remove the ridiculous speed cameras THEN I would sign up..

If people see that it is likely they will be caught and fined they will not use the phone. At the moment there is little or no link between the act of using the phone while driving and the consequences of it.

Your solution is to increase the ultimate consequence when all you need do is increase the likelihood of ANY consequence.

AllTheGear

I'm not sure I would agree with severtity of outcome determining punishment. I know a driver who fell asleep at the wheel, fortunately there were no injuries. There was a case of a driver falling asleep, derailing a train and killing a bunch of people.

They got very different outcomes for the same offence, yet the outcome was out of their control. The punishment for my mate was minor. Yet surely they should both have been given the same punishment?

davmaggs

wow I'm glad you aren't a judge. Should we still be transporting people to the colonies?

It's an offence not to have a TV licence for the few days between one expiring and you getting around to renewing, and offence not to pay your taxes on time, also for a mother juggling a few children to forgot to pay for something in Tesco. Should they all get time in Wandsworth under your binary guilty/no guilty state? Or do we recognise degrees of impact on society, trade off punishment with effects on others and not to forgot having encouraging people to behave in the right way.

Even drink driving has degrees of ban/fine to recognise that humans blunder and that they might behave if given another chance.

AndyManc

Kieran_Burns wrote:

What is the point of introducing a new law when there is an existing one that simply isn't enforced enough as it is?

.

Yes .... BUT , and this is where this proposal could end the majority of illegal mobile phone use.... if a motorists fears he/she will lose his license then they will be far lest likely to risk getting away with it.



.

AndyManc

davmaggs wrote:

Or do we recognise degrees of impact on society, .

Like killing , destroying whole families you mean ?


.

Porgy

The oil's about to run out - the thousand dollar oil barrel is on its way. Cars will become very scarce.

This will almost certainly happen while allt he politicians are sitting about discussing their own expenses.

Therefore no petition required - just wait. 8)

oh and why don;t we all celebrate that GM went into bankruptcy today.

AllTheGear

I'd second Kieran's comments.

The sentence for murder is a long prison term. It still happens a lot though! I'm not sure that the probability of a harsh punishment is a deterrent, as you're not thinking about this at the time? Seems like better driver education would help out a lot.

Feltup

Kieran_Burns wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

For anyone playing the "but if you don't want to be banned then obey the law" card, then save your typing. Lots of decent people break the law all the time and the use of points and fines gives courts the useful concept of discretion.

Just as not all speeding is dangerous, not all messing about with phones/satnavs/radios/screaming passengers is.

Totally disagree with everything you have said and I'm surprised at that view coming from a 'cyclist' , it's that mindset that all cyclist have to face on the roads each and every day.

The law is clear, .. obey it or lose you license.... it's a simple as that.


.

and I happen to disagree with you.

What is the point of introducing a new law when there is an existing one that simply isn't enforced enough as it is?

You want to have a driving ban imposedfor a crime because it will presumably act as a greater deterrent, when all you need to do is ACTIVELY enforce the existing one. People use the phone while driving because they are highly unlikely to be caught.

If there was a petition to put more Road Police out there and remove the ridiculous speed cameras THEN I would sign up..

If people see that it is likely they will be caught and fined they will not use the phone. At the moment there is little or no link between the act of using the phone while driving and the consequences of it.

Your solution is to increase the ultimate consequence when all you need do is increase the likelihood of ANY consequence.

+1 completely agree.

Porgy

Motorists are such a bloody minded bunch - tell them they can't do something and they do it more.

Drink driving is on the increase again. :evil:

cee

Always Tyred wrote:

Yes, black and white doesn't work. I think most people will share the sentiment, but the punishment wouldn't necessarily fit the crime.

Now, if some link were established between the severity of the OUTCOME of an offence, rather than the intent, it would be more interesting. Whereas this might appear to address the aftermath of incidents, I wonder if there would be some deterrent value.

interesting point.....the outcome thing...Does causing death by dangerous driving work like that....to me a layman in legal terms, it would seem that dangerous driving was the intial breaking of the law, then the outcome of running someone over to death, then makes the punishment (and charge) much more severe.

I think there is a point somewhere that every individual using their mobile whilst driving, intended to do so..this is clear...

The interesting bit for me is one that i think spen talked about in another thread...something about a cyclist not wearing a helmet, and having some responsibility for their own injuries, but the precedent quoted seemed to suggest to me that the driver should be liable for everything that occured as a result of their initial breaking of the law...I think the words were take your victim as you find them or something like that.

now i might have read that incorrectly, or just be plain wrong...hopefully someone else will say if that is the case...

But..by using a mobile phone, surely the driver has to be responsible for the things that happened as a result of that initial discrepency, much like causing death by dangerous driving.....

Kieran_Burns

AndyManc wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

What is the point of introducing a new law when there is an existing one that simply isn't enforced enough as it is?

.

Yes .... BUT , and this is where this proposal could end the majority of illegal mobile phone use.... if a motorists fears he/she will lose his license then they will be far lest likely to risk getting away with it.



.

I think you've missed the point: the existing law is not enforced, people use their phone while driving NOW. It is illegal NOW, yet they still do it. The reason is because they are not going to be caught, because the powers that be decree that speeding is the ultimate offence on the road and throw up cameras that miss all the dangerous / uninsured, untaxed, non-road worthy cars but DO catch a moments inattention to the speed limit.

Put more Police out there, enforce the existing laws and stop adding even more laws to the ridiculously over-burdened statutes.

always_tyred

AllTheGear wrote:

I'm not sure I would agree with severtity of outcome determining punishment. I know a driver who fell asleep at the wheel, fortunately there were no injuries. There was a case of a driver falling asleep, derailing a train and killing a bunch of people.

They got very different outcomes for the same offence, yet the outcome was out of their control. The punishment for my mate was minor. Yet surely they should both have been given the same punishment?

I guess I 'm thinking about the cases where someone comits an offence, such as a "without due care" offience, and kills someone, but gets a £100 fine because they didn't mean it and the offence wouldn't ordinarily have resulted in such severe consequences. I think it would be pretty straightforward to keep the current tarrifs, but overlay them with "if something bad happened" tarrifs, if that makes any sense. I guess it would be a form of absolute liability. At the moment, road use seems to have rather too many ways whereby someone can kill someone but not be held all that responsible.

Take another walk of life. You decide to play blindfold darts with a carving knife and try to aim for just underneath your friend's armpit..... okay I need a better example...

Feltup

Porgy wrote:

The oil's about to run out - the thousand dollar oil barrel is on its way. Cars will become very scarce.

This will almost certainly happen while allt he politicians are sitting about discussing their own expenses.

Therefore no petition required - just wait. 8)

oh and why don;t we all celebrate that GM went into bankruptcy today.

Because thousands of people will likely lose their jobs? Love your caring attitude.

Porgy

Feltup wrote:

Porgy wrote:

The oil's about to run out - the thousand dollar oil barrel is on its way. Cars will become very scarce.

This will almost certainly happen while allt he politicians are sitting about discussing their own expenses.

Therefore no petition required - just wait. 8)

oh and why don;t we all celebrate that GM went into bankruptcy today.

Because thousands of people will likely lose their jobs? Love your caring attitude.

those people could be set to work making solar panels, electirc vehicles, wind turbines, etc. or a thousand other jobs needed if we move to a green economy, if our govenrments had a will to do so.

Would you also mourn for the arms industry jobs if we ever stopped war?

AndyManc

Just to add , research has shown that using a mobile phone has the same detrimental effects as driving under the influence, both acts are premeditated and intentional , drink driving carries a ban , so should the total ignorance and wilful neglect of operating a mobile phone.

There will be a lot of opposition to this petition from those under 30, who cling to their mobile like a baby to a dummy , if I can park my car when I want to make a call ... so can everyone else

Either you value human life (and this petition if enforced would save lives) or you believe an individual has the right to endanger others for the sake of looking at a meaningless text message.


.

Porgy

Unfortunately any legislation on use of mobile phones will alomst totally unenforceable.

We need to make it a taboo in society like we did with drink driving. If you are in a car with someone making a text message amke them stop, get out, and give them a massive bollocking. Maybe take their phone and stamp on it for good measure. :twisted:

Feltup

You may not like the car industry but the fact is there will be thousands of people laid off if GM goes bankrupt. Those people have families to support. Just because they work for an industry you dislike does not make them bad people.

Feltup

Porgy wrote:

Unfortunately any legislation on use of mobile phones will alomst totally unenforceable.

We need to make it a taboo in society like we did with drink driving. If you are in a car with someone making a text message amke them stop, get out, and give them a massive bollocking. Maybe take their phone and stamp on it for good measure. :twisted:

Agree with this.

Porgy

Feltup wrote:

You may not like the car industry but the fact is there will be thousands of people laid off if GM goes bankrupt. Those people have families to support. Just because they work for an industry you dislike does not make them bad people.

Where did I say they were bad people?

this is all the fault of our short sighted leaders, and I am for one extremely pleased that a change is a-happening.

A pity that our leaders refused to see this coming and behaved like ostriches don't with their heads in the sand.

Hopefully noone will be out of work for long - and the new economy will spring up soon.

But i'm still fecking pleased that the old car manufacturing giants are on their way out.
You have to admit that they haven't exactly got a good track record with the way they treat their staff - maybe a new more sustainable green economy will ensure that these people get better jobs, more skilled and less likely to be laid off everytime the oil price goes up a bit.

lost_in_thought

This petition is, as others have said above, rather pointless until there is some enforcement of the current laws to prove that it's relevant.

I also think that either it's just badly worded, even if he is a 'well amazing guy', or needs a lot more clarity. Bringing mobile phone laws in line with drink driving laws seems a little unrealistic considering the applicable variability of drink driving penalties - how would that work with a phone? And how would you enforce that?

Furthermore, the petition adds in the option of confiscating a car - not even used in drink driving legislation.

I'm sure Spen will be along if I'm wrong above, but all things considered I certainly won't be signing.

lost_in_thought

AndyManc wrote:

Just to add , research has shown that using a mobile phone has the same detrimental effects as driving under the influence, both acts are premeditated and intentional , drink driving carries a ban , so should the total ignorance and wilful neglect of operating a mobile phone.
.

Research has also shown that being over 60 is as detrimental to your reaction time as being young and a few microgrammes over the limit...