Number of drivers using phones while driving tripled within a year!!

[HJ]

I find this survey from the RAC very worrying, in-particular that "Almost half (46 per cent) of all motorists who receive calls when they are driving claim not to be distracted by them, and 47 per cent believe texting on the road does not divert their attention from driving. " All the research evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Jaguar]

Mr J has a hands-free. I still have to remind him that there's other traffic on the road while he's making/taking a call (he goes off in lala land when on the phone)

Nearly clipped a moped last weekend

 

[Bollo]

It doesn't say whether the surveys were conducted face-to-face or by anonymous paper-based/online responses. If it's the latter, then I'd take the results at face value. If it was face-to-face, I'd expect people to be a little less honest when responding. This might suggest that, after the initial fuss about mobile use, a lot of people have made the decision that it's a socially acceptable behaviour and are more willing to own up to it.

Either way, a deeply worrying trend. I try to stay chilled about other people's driving habits these days, but phoning/testing/friendfacing while driving still utterly grips my poo. It's the surest indicator of the potential for wanky driving.

 

[hambones]

Reading updates on Cyclechat whilst on the motorway is not good practice either! Guilty sir!

 

[summerdays]

Its time to change the penalty for using your phone and also the way that we gather evidence. For example if we had a photo of a driver on the phone together checking with their phone records that should be enough to prove that the person was on the phone, rather than a police officer actually witnessing it. It is definitely becoming acceptable to use your phone by the number I see every day.

 

[PBancroft]

From my own experience I don't think that mobile use has increased, but then I don't think it ever really decreased, except for a temporary dip just after using them became illegal and before people realised how hard it is to get caught.

I would be interested in seeing any data about accidents directly or indirectly caused by mobile phone use... maybe publicising that kind of info would put some people of doing it. But then I wonder if that even exists, since phone use is so easy to deny after the event (and if not witnessed).

 

[beanzontoast]

It's a tricky problem. If more people are doing it, this seems to suggest they a) don't expect to be caught and b) don't consider the penalties that bad if they are.

Increasing the penalties if caught using a phone while driving will only be effective as a deterrent if people see that detection and prosecution rates rise. I like summerdays idea of photographic evidence - but then roadside cameras seem to be out of favour at the moment. Cameras at traffic lights are mainly going to catch people using the phone while their vehicle is not moving, whereas IMO the moving vehicle poses the greater danger.

In some parts of the world, built-in satnavs now have safety devices incorporated that prevent the satnav being altered/interrogated while the engine is running. OK, it's still a distraction to some degree - different problem, different situation - but maybe there is a technological solution to the mobile phone problem too (...and a fortune waiting to be made for the inventor).

 

[fossyant]

The number of 'expensive' cars you see where the driver is using the phone - the car more than likely has hand's free, but they can't be bothered.

 

[Amanda P]

Increasing the penalties if caught using a phone while driving will only be effective as a deterrent if people see that detection and prosecution rates rise.

I don't think that's true. I think the risk of the bad thing happening (getting caught) and the consequences if it does happen (the punishment) can be balanced against each other.

As an example, imagine crossing stepping stones in a shallow stream. Youl'll cross because if you fall off, you'll get your feet wet. No big deal. Now imagine the same stepping stones with a 100 foot drop all around. You probably wouldn't choose to cross those. The risk is the same: the consequences if the risk is realised are hugely different, and that affects your decision as to whether to take the risk.

Coming back to driving, the reality is that you're very unlikely to be caught for any driving offence. And short of hugely increasing policing (pretty unlikely just now) that's not going to change.

If you are caught, punishments are mostly wrist-slaps. Three points and £60? It's monopoly money. If you can afford to run a car, £60 is a pinprick.

Let's make those punishments hurt: let's impound cars and impose short-term driving bans. That would make people realise how much they value their cars and being able to drive - and reinforce the idea that driving is a privilidge that can be taken a way, not a God-given right.

If we did this, it wouldn't be long before everyone knew of someone who'd been banned for a week or a month for speeding or using the phone while driving. For those whose cars are part of their status, that would be embarassing. For those who depend on their cars it would be a real punishment, making life difficult. (Should have thought of that before they committed the offence). Word would get around that it wasn't worth the risk.

So, if we can't improve the chances of numpties getting caught, we can prevent them committing offences in the first place by making the consequences if they are caught sufficiently unpleasant.

 

[beanzontoast]

Let's make those punishments hurt: let's impound cars and impose short-term driving bans. That would make people realise how much they value their cars and being able to drive - and reinforce the idea that driving is a privilidge that can be taken a way, not a God-given right.

If we did this, it wouldn't be long before everyone knew of someone who'd been banned for a week or a month for speeding or using the phone while driving. For those whose cars are part of their status, that would be embarassing. For those who depend on their cars it would be a real punishment, making life difficult. (Should have thought of that before they committed the offence). Word would get around that it wasn't worth the risk.

So, if we can't improve the chances of numpties getting caught, we can prevent them committing offences in the first place by making the consequences if they are caught sufficiently unpleasant.

Good point. There's a lot to be said for word-of-mouth as a discouraging factor. Would be interesting to do a survey that asked a large number of law-abiding drivers to give the most important reason why they don't use a mobile when driving - is it because they know it's illegal/dangerous, or is it that they don't want the fine/stigma if they are caught.

 

[marzjennings]

As a comparison, over here (Texas) they've only just introduced laws to restrict cell phone use (new law 2009) and it only applies while driving through school zones, but due to the fact that you often see police targeting schools zones and there's a $200 fine if caught I don't see anyone on their phone now. Of course 5cm out of the school zone folks are straight back on their phone.

Saw a great example this morning, cell phone held between left ear and shoulder, interior light on, rear view mirror adjusted to face their face, make up being applied, car traveling at 35mph. At least they weren't speeding.

 

[trickletreat]

The number of 'expensive' cars you see where the driver is using the phone - the car more than likely has hand's free, but they can't be bothered.

Wife and I were out in her new car at the weekend, I was driving and she was using the handsfree so that our daughter could join in the conversation. I very quickly realised that I could not recall parts of the journey, so asked her to use the handset instead. Now I was driving and not participating in the call, but it was as distracting as if I had been either using the handset, or making a call handsfree....

I think any use of a mobile, handsfree or otherwise, greatly reduces driver awareness, and therefor other road users safety. Seeing as how I am car free mostly, using the trike daily, I am becoming increasingly anti people who make my world less safe on the road.

 

[ferret fur]

Worryingly for me because I rather thought I knew the law:

33 per cent believe using a phone in a lay-by is permissible

Are they saying you can't use a phone while parked in a layby. Why on earth not? You are stopped with the engine off. shome mishtake shurely?

 

[Arch]

Worryingly for me because I rather thought I knew the law:

Are they saying you can't use a phone while parked in a layby. Why on earth not? You are stopped with the engine off. shome mishtake shurely?

I thought it was ok as long as the engine is off. Parked up with the engine running, phone use is technically illegal, although you'd have to be unlucky to get pulled for it, I'd assume, given the low numbers of police out there.

 

[StuartG]

I agree with the poster who favours short term bans rather than fines. That's a ban on the driver of, say, a week a point including impounding the car for the same period (with appropriate parking fee). If that does not chasten the driver, the inconvenience to she who must be obeyed may deliver greater deterrence than even the grandest judge in the country would dare.

It may be nice to attach a marker for every offence to the car reg plate. So we know who has been naughty, there is extra pressure on those who share cars and offenders may doubly fear bering seen as a marked driver by the plod.


Losing the car hits where it really hurts. While I'm not normally in favour of 3 strikes - permanent confiscation of the vehicle for repeated offences does have its attractions and resale may raise some useful revenue.

But as this would be seen as part of "A War on Motorists" - no chance for 5 years!