Forum home Road cycling forum Campaign

e-Petition Use of mobile phones

MJGePetMJGePet Posts: 2
edited August 2012 in Campaign
Please sign this e-Petition to raise the penalties for driving whilst using a mobile phone to those currently administered for driving without insurance... e.g. six points and £200 fine.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35017

Please feel free to post to other groups or friends

Regards

MJG

Posts

  • bigmatbigmat Posts: 5,111
    They need to start by imposing the existing law consistently. 6 points will be over the top in most cases and will just force the police to turn a blind eye even more often than they already do (IMHO).
  • cooldadcooldad Posts: 32,904
    No. Although I bet 6 points that the hit and run spammer will never be back.
    I don't do smileys.

    There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

    London Calling on Facebook

    Parktools
  • diydiy Posts: 6,680
    Despite having to regularly swerve drivers on their phone not paying attention while commuting by motorbike, I never supported the original law. Much better for the police to apply the existing tests for offences of bad driving rather than a specific phone charge.

    Surely its better that the person who is driving dangerously while on the phone gets a different penalty than someone who is just distracted?
  • Mike HealeyMike Healey Posts: 1,023
    diy wrote:
    Despite having to regularly swerve drivers on their phone not paying attention while commuting by motorbike, I never supported the original law. Much better for the police to apply the existing tests for offences of bad driving rather than a specific phone charge.
    Surely its better that the person who is driving dangerously while on the phone gets a different penalty than someone who is just distracted?

    The difference between dangerous driving while on the phone and distracted driving is mere happenstance. The danger occurs when the distractedness collides with unfortunate traffic conditions. Given that all the research I've come across shows that driving using a mobile, i.e. distractedly, reduces the ability to concentrate by an even greater amount than driving while under the influence, to try to distinguish between dangerous and distracted driving is pointless
    Organising the Bradford Kids Saturday Bike Club at the Richard Dunn Sports Centre since 1998
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/eastbradfordcyclingclub/
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/eastbradfordcyclingclub/
  • diydiy Posts: 6,680
    yet its been done with the new causing death by ... offences which distinguish for example between a case of driving without due care and driving without due care which results in a death. Clearly the law makers feel a need to distinguish between the two despite the fact that the results are due to happenstance.

    The problem I have with the mobile phone law is its a construction and use offence, so its seen by most as nothing more serious that a speeding ticket or parking fine. A technical infringement of the law rather than something which has the potential to be dangerous. Its also very easy for most to get off, due to the technical definition required. By amending the definitions of the bad driving offences (inconsiderate, due care, and dangerous) we'd have had a nice scaled offence based on the level of bad driving caused by the use of the phone. It could also have wrapped up any other distracting device, such as those currently excluded e.g. certain smart phones, pda, tablet, sat nav stereo 2-way radio etc.
  • Ron StuartRon Stuart Posts: 1,242
    You can have all the laws in the world with strong penalties to boot but if they aren't policed adequately then there worth very little. Mobile phones whilst driving, throwing litter out of cars, speeding in built up areas, driving with dog on lap or passenger seat, or dash board, tail gating, jumping lights, defective lights, bald tyres, changing lanes or turning without signaling are all as common as Katie out here in the 'Wild West of Shropshire' the only saving grace is that we don't have as much traffic as certain other counties but what we do have is c*ap :!:
  • HeadhuunterHeadhuunter Posts: 6,494
    bigmat wrote:
    They need to start by imposing the existing law consistently. 6 points will be over the top in most cases and will just force the police to turn a blind eye even more often than they already do (IMHO).

    I'm sure this is true, the City Police in London admitted to me in a letter that they do not enforce ASL boxes at junctions because they do not feel the penalties for entering ASLs on motorists are fair
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • diydiy Posts: 6,680
    Unless the officers see the driver enter the ASL, he cannot be certain that an offence has been committed. Remember its not an offence to stop in an ASL, the offence is failing to stop at the first line on red.

    Secondly in London a high number of ASL are not painted in compliance with required specification, so the police would have to become experts in the requirements too.

    If we wanted Police to enforce ASLs, then we should expect them to also enforce them against cyclists who do not stop at the white line on red also. Personally, I have never seen the logic in placing the most vulnerable road users ahead of the traffic, where they appear to be directly in harms way. Just last night I was commuting out of London (motorbike) and stopped at a traffic light along with a bunch other bikers. At least 10 cyclists cycled to the front of the Lights passing over the white line (there was no ASL) and stopped and waited. This caused annoyance to most of the bikers waiting, as the cyclists had blocked them in. I think a lot of cyclists are unaware/don't care about other road users safety needs. Motorcyclists also suffer from being rear ended at lights and have the same needs as cyclists to get away promptly from the lights to get ahead of the danger.

    There seems to be a view that we can do what we like but everyone else should drive with the utmost consideration under threat of sever prosecution if they don't. Its human nature that if you are discourteous to others they wont be particularly considerate to you either.
  • bails87bails87 Posts: 13,317
    I don't think it's necessarily rudeness that makes cyclists use the facilities that are provided for them. It's the fact that the facilities, rightly or wrongly, are there and encourage cyclists to ride down the left hand side of traffic and then sit in front of traffic that's stopped at the lights.

    I'm fairly experienced and assertive, I like to think I've got a reasonable idea of what I'm doing and I'm able to judge when I'm better off ignoring the ASL and cyclelane. I'll filter or not depending on the circumstances. It always seems to me that it's the less 'serious' cyclists who just follow the path that's been painted for them and stay in 'their' bit of road :cycle lanes and ASLs.
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
Sign In or Register to comment.