Phone seizure proposal for drivers involved in RTA's

[IDMark2]

Article here
Apart from the current measures, which are obviously flouted and ignored every day, do you think that at least the adding of this measure as routine to every RTA attended might make police think about drivers and phone usage more than they currently seem to?

 

[Big Nick]

Link doesn't work??

 

[raleighnut]

That's one of the police's cash cows, phone records can tell if the phone was in use so why bother taking it away. They'll only break or lose it.
A friend and colleague of mine was once stopped by the police who accused him of being on his mobile "really" he said opened the door got out and opened his boot, removed his briefcase and opened that to retrieve his phone "No no-ones called in the past 3 hours"
He'd been idly scratching his ear on a long drive back to base from south London.

 

[IDMark2]

Sorry, think it's fixed now.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Link doesn't work??

Works for me but here's the gist from the road.cc article:

The mobile phones of all drivers involved in crashes will be seized and examined under new police guidelines aimed at discouraging drivers from texting and calling at the wheel.

It is already illegal to use a mobile phone at the wheel but the law is widely flouted.

Police will now check whether drivers were using their phone prior to the crash as a matter of course, and will be able to use the mobile records as evidence in court.
​

GC

 

[IDMark2]

That's one of the police's cash cows, phone records can tell if the phone was in use so why bother taking it away. They'll only break or lose it.

I think the objection to possible police over-zealousness is already raised in the article, however the example you recount does not occur after an accident. My point of possible discussion is whether the improvement to current crash investigation, that currently phones are not removed and phone records are not currently examined unless a KSI incident has occurred, might well be made with these recommendations in place?

 

[Big Nick]

Until they make it a mandatory disqualification on first offence it will still be widely flouted I reckon

Taking everyone's mobiles seems a bit excessive in minor bumps if there's no allegation from anyone involved someone else involved was using their phone

 

[GrumpyGregry]

has been denied by ACPO.

 

[CopperCyclist]

That's one of the police's cash cows, phone records can tell if the phone was in use so why bother taking it away. They'll only break or lose it.

This. Not necessary to seize for every accident. Disproportionate even.

 

[Alun]

It is already illegal to use a mobile phone at the wheel but the law is widely flouted.
It's not illegal to use a mobile phone at the wheel, it's illegal to handhold one.

 

[StuartG]

I hope it is just a badly written article. It would be great if each and every phone was checked against use immediately prior to the incident.

Frankly the simplest way with most smartphones is for the driver to show the log of phone calls and messages there and then. This should indicate immediately if there is an issue. For those that do not wish or phones do not have logs then they give the number and the police can check with the mobile operator (having phoned the mobile at the scene to verify it is the correct number).

Seizing/taking away should be unnecessary except in the most exceptional of cases and that too can be legislated for. So everybody is happy except for the naughty user*.

* To be practical it would probably require the banning of hands free too. But then as these are also dangerous that might be a good thing.

 

[summerdays]

Is there a way of detecting a mobile if a driver denied having one or had an old one for just such cases?

I think it should be one of the first things checked on stopping a driver whose driving isn't up to standard. Yesterday Mr summerdays noticed a car stationary at a roundabout and then spotted they were too busy on their phone to be aware of where they were!

 

[Alun]

Is there a way of detecting a mobile if a driver denied having one or had an old one for just such cases?

I think it should be one of the first things checked on stopping a driver whose driving isn't up to standard. Yesterday Mr summerdays noticed a car stationary at a roundabout and then spotted they were too busy on their phone to be aware of where they were!

A phone if switched on can be traced to an approximate location, but you have to know the ID of the phone.
The difficulty comes when there are multiple phones/people in the vehicle.
I don't think the police have time to "stop a driver whose driving isn't up to standard" far less carry out investigations into multiple phone records. I can drive hundreds of miles between seeing police cars/officers. The "thin blue line" is stretched a long way these days.

 

[summerdays]

A phone if switched on can be traced to an approximate location, but you have to know the ID of the phone.
The difficulty comes when there are multiple phones/people in the vehicle.
I don't think the police have time to "stop a driver whose driving isn't up to standard" far less carry out investigations into multiple phone records. I can drive hundreds of miles between seeing police cars/officers. The "thin blue line" is stretched a long way these days.

I didn't mean stop everyone whose driving wasn't up to standard. I meant that if you had been stopped by the police, it would be really easy to chuck a phone under the seat and then deny having a phone on them. In that situation is it possible to somehow detect that there is a mobile using some hand held device (though I suppose the easiest would be to simply get them to tell you their number, then they could lie I guess?)

I know that you search up records as years ago Mr summerdays who was working for Orange at the time was called to prove using phone records who had initiated a call (this was quite a few years ago).

 

[Alun]

I didn't mean stop everyone whose driving wasn't up to standard. I meant that if you had been stopped by the police, it would be really easy to chuck a phone under the seat and then deny having a phone on them. In that situation is it possible to somehow detect that there is a mobile using some hand held device (though I suppose the easiest would be to simply get them to tell you their number, then they could lie I guess?)

I know that you search up records as years ago Mr summerdays who was working for Orange at the time was called to prove using phone records who had initiated a call (this was quite a few years ago).

It's not an offence to "have a phone on you", nor to drive a car whilst a passenger takes/makes a call, or to use a phone via a hands free device, which maybe incorporated into the sound system of a car or be a bluetooth device the size of a hearing aid, with the handset in a pocket/glovebox/boot. Unless the officer sees you using the phone, (and coppers are thin on the ground these days) a prosecution would be difficult. Perhaps that's why it seems to be on the increase.