Mobe-orists?
If that horror catches on, El Reg will have a lot to answer for.
Drivers who stupidly use their mobile phones while barrelling along Britain's roads could be hit with much bigger fines if measures unveiled today by the government come into force. The Ministry of Justice wants tougher financial penalties to clamp down on criminals who flout the rules: for example, motorists who use their …
"I do hope that using your mobe dash-mounted as a GPS unit is excepted from the offences..."
That has technically been illegal for years. Having anything but a rear view mirror within the swept area of windscreen (where your wipers...err...wipe) is illegal and would be an MOT failure if you left it on (same with furry dice or those feet air fresheners people seem to like at the moment).
Most people would never be pulled up on it, but if it was proven you had that setup and were involved in an accident that was your fault it would most likely lead to a higher penalty. (advice taken from the mouth of a traffic officer).
The way around that is to simply use an air vent or cup holder mount.
I've got a dash-mounted mobile phone that's nowhere near the swept-area. The clue is the name "dash-mount" rather than windscreen-mount. It's next to the stereo below the line of the top of the dash.
The number of pillocks I see on the roads with windscreen mounts IN FRONT OF THEIR FACE scares the crap out of me.
I'm pretty sure there was a court ruling allowing mounted phone-based GPS, it would be madness to say that GPS units were ok but phones weren't. I wouldn't want to be without Waze, the amount of sitting in jams it's saved me over the years...
Yep. There is to be nothing in the space below the rear view mirror or top of the dashboard. The law (in the US anyway) actually uses the lower termination point of the gradient tint at the top of the windshield, not the mirror, but the effect is the same.
Cup holders and vents work well, so do the cradles for the old hardwired 'car phones'. If you want it to look fancy and don't want to carve up your dash and mold a cavity into your dash there are several companies that make vehicle specific accessory mounting brackets that attach with the factory installed screws hidden behind the bezel of your dash (often the screws that hold the radio). Law enforcement suppliers have all kinds of super cool stuff for mounting interior accessories, and you don't need to be law enforcement to buy from them.
Doesn't help when you are using your phone as a blackbox recorder for recording traffic, you'll just get uninteresting videos of your dashboard (and after having someone report that I crashed into the back of them recently when i was no where near led me to a mount that stays attached and I record every trip).
However mine is mounted at the top of the windscreen, roughly level with the mirror and only obscures my view of passing aircraft.
'Only obscures your view of passing aircraft'.
Fool! You have just irrevocably sealed your fate. Precept #7 of Don Jefe's Guide to Destroying the Universe Before It Destroys You states the following: 'The Universe will overlook the internal thoughts of individuals but will act with supreme malevolence if you give voice to your braggadocio and blasé regard for its limitless power'.
What that means for you, unfortunately, is that you will perish when an airplane falls on your car. There's no escaping that fact now, so you shouldn't let it worry you. Perhaps you should wager some money on that. While the winnings won't do you any good, the bookies are going to give insanely bad odds against, so a $100 investment will make your family wealthy and perhaps ease their suffering due to your loss.
I am sufficiently tall that I have to scrunch down to see the road ahead. Even then, a quarter of the windscreen gives me an excellent view of the bonnet. The GPS talks to me, so I have no reason to look at it while driving. The reason why I want it under the windscreen is so it gets a good signal from the satellites. The GPS does not talk to me about signal strength. For that, I would have to look at it. What wonderful laws we have.
"I am sufficiently tall that I have to scrunch down to see the road ahead. Even then, a quarter of the windscreen gives me an excellent view of the bonnet."
I'm not particularly tall, so it's nowhere near that much - but my 'phone' holder is mounted on the windscreen at the bottom, and the only thing it (and the phone, on those rare times I actually use it as a sat-nav*) obscures is my view of the bonnet.
* The rest of the time, I don't consider it a phone holder, but a steak slice holder; I usually buy one on the way to the office for breakfast, and I put it above the vents and switch them on for the last couple of miles to keep it warm. The holder is low enough that it holds the steak slice in place.
@Will that is one of the reasons I sold my Verso. I couldn't see the road in right hand corners (Germany), because my seat put my head level with the mirror. I had to duck down to look around corners and look at traffic lights.
I now have a car with a smaller mirror, it is mounted higher / the seat is lower and I have a panorama windscreen, so no more ducking to look around corners or look at the traffic lights*. It might also explain why the insurance is 50% lower than the Verso. :-P
* in Germany the traffic lights are only on your side of the junction; I think it is done as a deterent to stop people trying to get a jump start on a green light by watching the other direction change to red.
I hope that means holding it in your hand rather than just interacting with it while it's mounted in a cradle. Even then, will interacting with it to make a call be different to interacting with it to use the satnav app? Are telephone calls in vehicles becoming the new demon we are all obliged to loathe?
And while we're looking at preventative measures, how about *offering* all existing drivers an advanced driving option, and *requiring* all new drivers to take a course after one year of experience. The result will be safer, more aware drivers. It is about that, not just making tons of money, right?
Let's make one thing clear : anything that takes your eyes off the road for any amount of time is a risk; the faster you drive, the higher the risk.
So, if by "interacting" with a phone you mean connecting a call or hanging up, then I will grudgingly admit that that should be fine, in a cradle or Bluetooth mode.
But as far as anything else is concerned, I'm sorry, your hands are supposed to be on the wheel and your eyes on the road at all times. If you can slip in texting or anything else than checking a GPS screen for your position, you're not doing it right.
Bah, soon The Google will be driving us all around anyways. We will thus be free to happily provide all of our movement details to the infinitely-tentacle data slurper in exchange for being able to HEY! I'M TXTING IN A CAR!
"Content is also important"
Absolutely! take pr0n for example. Depending on which side of the divide you drive*, you are faced with the choice of using your non fap hand to change gear and crashing into a tree, or using your fap hand, thus losing <ahem> momentum. It's a sticky choice. Although if it's sticky, you've probably already freed up your fap hand for driving duties
The one with the stains, obviously.
* And, of course, on whether you subscribe to the dextrous or sinistrous side of the handedness debate.
"But as far as anything else is concerned, I'm sorry, your hands are supposed to be on the wheel and your eyes on the road at all times"
Really? So no longer are we allowed to by manual shift cars, use car air vents, pull down the sun shade? We can no longer look at the speedometer, fuel gauge, warning lights?
Get off your high horse. There is nothing wrong with taking your eyes off the road for a split second when safe to do so or removing a hand from the steering wheel - emergency services have been doing it for years to answer the radio, turn on blues and twos etc (yes, not all, as some newer cars have Vox and foot mounted horns etc). Just drive sensibly, responsibly, relaxed and don't be an idiot and you'll be one of the safest on the road.
Anyone on here berating others for doing xyz when driving, I bet I could spend a hour in a car with them and notice a number of mistakes or things you could do safer (exactly the same as some could riding along with me).
A drivers license has some of the same pitfalls as a General Contractors License or certificate in a specific skill or technology.
What you get are people who can pass a test, and who confuse following a checklist and actually performing (thing) well. That certainly not to say that everybody with a drivers license or certificate is an idiot, they aren't. But there are plenty of people who never build in the basic skills and behaviors required to gain that license or certificate.
They simply don't think about doing anything they weren't expressly told to do, or not do. The result is that those people sometimes view the behavior of others as dangerous when they are not if they are being performed by someone with experience.
Now, that doesn't mean that there's no threshold beyond which certain behaviors aren't dangerous. There are lots of things that are unreasonably dangerous regardless of ones skills or experience. But at the same time, there is no reason to not develop the ability to do things like manipulate interior controls and expand your field of view beyond what is provided by the windshield and mirrors.
Let's make one thing clear : anything that takes your eyes off the road for any amount of time is a risk; the faster you drive, the higher the risk.
Absolutely, and for that reason alone I'd see the Tomtom app banned. Its UI makes it impossible to operate without taking quite a bit of time off the road because there are many, many things it insists on having confirmed for no reason I can discern than being frigging awkward.
I'm not quite sure who designs the UI at TomTom but he/she/it must live near work and never travel to unknown places.
> there should be some form of retest of licenced drivers every 10 years
Every 10 years might prove to be unworkable, but there should definitely be a check-up.
I passed my test when I was 17. I don't need to do a damn thing to keep my licence until my 70th birthday - and even then, I only need to *self-certify* that my eyesight is still up to snuff.
Compulsory eye-tests would be a good thing all round.
Vic.
"Compulsory eye-tests would be a good thing all round."
New Zealand introduced them 15 years ago (you do them each time you renew your photo license) and yes, they do work well.
There's no reason 10 year retests would be unworkable, but even just giving the courts/police the ability to order a driving test resit would help.
That is why most cars have bluetooth built in these days. You press a button on the steering wheel / column to accept the calls and I can make a call over my radio, so I don't need to take my phone out of my pocket. Likewise the phone offers to read SMS to me over the bluetooth connection when I am in the car; I can even dictate an answer.
That said, I don't like telephoning in the car, but luckily that is very rare. The same for using the navigation software, I think I have used it twice in the last 3 years.
I think that the aim is to eventually ban so much as thinking about your phone while driving, whether it's mounted on your windscreen or not. This is a win-win for the government;
* Fewer car crashes (that has to be a good thing)
* More sales in yet-to-be-revealed new driver-legal technology
* Better case for self-driving cars
And of course, this doesn't affect MPs as they have tax-payer-funder chauffeurs and/or trains to carry them around the country.
I have observed, however cynical I am at the government's motives for doing anything, that pretty much every idiot that does something idiotic on a roundabout or a junction is on their phone, thinking that if they talk on it like they do on The Apprentice then they won't get fined.
The one that bugs me is the tacked on one about the quadrupled fine for speeding on the motorway. I'm not apologising for speeding, but long straight wide stretches of road outside areas of high pedestrian traffic seem to be almost exactly the wrong area to focus/crack down on, and smacks of meeting targets rather than protecting the public.
The one that bugs me is the tacked on one about the quadrupled fine for speeding on the motorway
If you guys cared enough to get organised I'd run a campaign to stick to 10mph UNDER the speed limit for a few weeks. I'd suspect that would ruffle more feathers than just whinging about the fine, because it would
a - at one stroke remove a solid block of income which law enforcement should not have in the first place (it removes a lot of bias and "creativity" - a bit like parking fines are a complete mess too),
b - create enough traffic problems to demonstrate why we need the higher speeds (and even higher, in the Netherlands they now have 80 mp/h as national limit) and
c - send a unified signal to the politicians. Politicians are never worried about people whinging, but when enough people band together that equates to a threat to their votes, and THAT they worry about.
> If you guys cared enough to get organised I'd run a campaign to stick to 10mph UNDER the speed limit for a few weeks.
They do this in Australia. "Wipe off 5" is one of the most bizarre campaigns by a road authority authority I've ever seen. Apart from the fact that the speed limits in Victoria are already low, and weirdly lower on the motorway than on A-roads, essentially the road authority is saying that it got its speed-limits wrong. Then if everyone was driving 5k slower, would there still be benefit to wiping off 5? When exactly should we stop taking off another 5?
All this is slightly moot as you often get people who have wiped off 20 in the outside lane of the motorways.
Have you considered the possibility that the fines have gone up to compensate for more people not breaking the law?
Quadrupling the fine speaks of some other issue than road-safety being at stake - that's a massive hike which does seem disproportionate.
More common in Europe seems to be the adoption of "1 month's salary" for excessive speeding. That generally means everybody gets hit similarly hard - depending on the amoung of "disposable" income and how much you have managed to save.
In Germany you also get an automatic 1 - 3 month ban for excessive speed - and someone got nicked for doing 120 through a village last week! :-O
To the point about motorways being away from high pedestrian traffic yada yada yada, here in Germany more and more of the Autobahn network is being put under speed restrictions, either blanket or time based, for safety reasons; although they also seem to find that putting up successively lower speed restrictions for parts of the road that are falling apart is more economical than resurfacing.
On unrestricted sections, you can be done for driving 140km/h like a wombat, whilst somebody driving at 300+km/h might not get a ticket, because they are not causing a danger to other road users. But where there are speed restrictions in place, the police tend to be very sharp about pulling excessive speeders over.
What's the point in having judges (magistrates even). If all they can do is read a matrix of number of offenses vs. crime, and dish out the relevant penalty?
It concerns me more that we, apparently, cant trust our judges et al to deliver an appropriate verdict and punishment off their own judgement, than the idea of someone using a phone in a car.
"What's the point in having judges (magistrates even). If all they can do is read a matrix of number of offenses vs. crime, and dish out the relevant penalty?"
I think you'll find that the system is a little bit more nuanced than that. What's being talked about is the maximum fines here, and those are rarely imposed (in the same way that maximum prison sentences are rarely imposed). The magistrates do have some discretion, some use it well, some use it poorly. What will be of interest is how these pan out in practice - if the maximum fine quadruples, does the average also?
On the one hand this is not about deterrence or punishment, its simply a reflection of a wider move amongst governments who have realised that they can raise more money through punitive fines - the Spanish government did something similar recently, and I think the French also. Think of it as a selective stealth tax. Of course, it is targeted at you and me. The true riff raff don't pay fines anyway, the rich won't give a toss about these fines still (a days pay for a Premiership footballer, and that's if his lawyer can't get him off), and as Huhne demonstrated, politicians believe that the law doesn't apply to them.
The next step will be far more widespread use of all types of enforcement cameras, but with a particular emphasis on speed cameras, because that's one of the easiest things to target. As usual poor or deliberately dangerous driving will be ignored because that's too difficult.
The next step will be far more widespread use of all types of enforcement cameras, but with a particular emphasis on speed cameras, because that's one of the easiest things to target. As usual poor or deliberately dangerous driving will be ignored because that's too difficult.
That's because the latter cannot be automated, that requires real people who need paying. Just out of interest, have the fines gone up for damaging cameras? Just an innocent enquiry :p
I'm afraid ukgnome is correct.
On a double decker, alongside your car, I can pretty much pinpoint which social media app it is you're using from its colour scheme
In fact the police up here are using lorry cabs for just this reason, if they see you using a phone for typing or reading (as opposed to the more-obvious calling) they can see and photograph it easier
If you are driving close enough to someone to see them doing that, you're driving FAR too close to them at 70mph...
I've started watching traffic coming the other way when I'm stopped at road junctions, and a depressing number of people seem to be using a phone, either pressed to their ear or gazing down at it. And junctions are the sort of places where you should really be giving most of your attention to what's going on outside of the car!
"It's even more scary when you don't have a big metal cage around you."
I know how you feel, I walk home from work alongside a busy road at rush hour. Luckily I'm not on the road itself but the number of times I've seen cyclists almost KO'd is insane. I'm occasionally tempted to become a Glasshole for the express purpose of snitching on nutter drivers.
Great, can't wait, getting really fed up of people using their phones will driving, its a real nuisance.
Can we also get make-up being applied while driving added, and other such idiotic things as eating a bowl of cereal (with milk in it), that people seem to think they can do (yes, I know, careless or even dangerous driving would apply, but rarely do you see that happening).
Too many people treat their car as an extension of their home rather than as an item that can potentially do great damage, or even kill.
I love a sunny weekend drive, but some people can really ruin that enjoyment for others.
.
This post has been deleted by its author
means you can't do much while in motion without turning off the said mode, even then it can be distracting to select alternative routes and the like.
It is easier to spot folk on the hand held mobiles though. Bigger fines should lead to incentives to get hands free which while not perfect is still safer.
Our courts need the options to impose stiffer fines where needed. Maybe the maximum also needs a "multiplier" for number of times before the bench for related fines. So while you could get stung £10k for a first offence, for the fourth that could be £40k.
hands free which while not perfect is still safer.
The stats I saw (some while back - Google probably knows about them) says the opposite; there is no difference between using a phone in your hand and using it hands-free.
The former is rather easier to detect and prosecute, though.
So while you could get stung £10k for a first offence, for the fourth that could be £40k.
Do you not think those numbers a little large? For much of the population, anything £10K or more can be considered "infinite", and there's no way they'll ever be able to pay.
Vic.
From personal experience, if you are caught not following Barbara Castle's 1965 advice on how fast to drive, the police may accidentally write the wrong numbers down on their pad.
If for example they accidentally write 94mph instead of 98mph, then a fixed penalty is applied, rather than going in front of a magistrate for a minimum of 4 points and a much heavier fine. Sometimes a policeman may think about how excessive the penalties are for a certain band of speed, and these thoughts may distract them when they are filling out the form.
If the penalties become even heavier then even more policemen may become distracted in such a way.
If for example they accidentally write 94mph instead of 98mph, then a fixed penalty is applied, rather than going in front of a magistrate for a minimum of 4 points and a much heavier fine.
I got caught[1] at 102. Braking heavily. And got a fixed-penalty notice.
I've always found the best plan of action is to be extremely submissive - which, whilst it annoys me to have to play the part, seems to work quite well.
Vic.
[1] This was in 2002; I'm not sure if they've changed the guidelines. I do know that the copper in question didn't know about the crash resistance of a Lotus, but I wasn't going to argue with him...
The state would hire a qualified prosecutor. The clerk of the court has a legal qualification, but he cannot help as the magistrate is in charge and he does not require any proper qualifications at all. Much as I dislike the idea of my taxes going to pay for legal aid for some phone fondling driver, I would really hate to be in front of a magistrate with no barrister even though I do not even own a mobile phone.
It always irks me how many people (or their companies) can afford (them) to be driving around in high class Beemers, Mercs, Audis etc, and they either haven't got Bluetooth (either as standard or retrofitted). Not really any excuse anymore other than "I didn't want to spend the cash". Or worse, I HAVE spent the cash, but I'm too lazy to switch Bluetooth on.
I am seeing more and more people with headphones on in the car, presumably either to listen to music and cut out road noise, or because they're using the headphones with mikes to make calls. Either way, that's also cutting down on situational awareness a bit.
I've got in-dash GPS now (current and last cars) - but they are expensive, and both mine are "2nd user" cars :) I'm quite surprised more manufacturers haven't released/announced Miracast (or other wireless display) capable displays. Got a smartphone? You'll invariably have some form of Nav, so why not just have it sent to the car....?
That would cut down on the cost of providing a car with GPS antennae and systems, the in car nav updates, re-use owners phone tech, get screen mounted tat off the screen/out of view. Even providing a mobile "slot" with an NFC tag to help auto activate Miracast is possible.
In-car satnav also take readings from the wheels so that even a temporary absence of GPS signals does not suspend navigation support. This comes in handy when you're in tunnels. Personally, I would prefer a Bluetooth standard that could feed such wheel data (which is available on any car with ABS) to my in-phone GPS instead.
Alternatively, some EU anti-monopoly bloke could spend their funding by finding out why in-car satnavs still come at absolutely stupid prices. If there is one place we could really do with competition, it's there. Car satnav options tend to come at 10x the price of a standalone unit, which yells ripoff to me. I know they try to camouflage that by making it part of something else, but it's not exactly subtle.
I saw a graph the other day of accidents over the time period 1991 - 2010. You could really see the spike in fatalities as cell phones became ubiquitous - not.
I think the "How govt works:" sub-title is about right, plus they just make stuff up and claim it's "evidence".
Bring on the Tumbrels, that's wot I say.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
> motorists who use their mobile phones while driving are set to face fines of up to £4,000.
Does anyone know of anyone actually fined this amount of money for just accidentally colliding with someone while driving.
I accept that using a mobile while driving is pretty stupid (particularly in busy traffic), but I do have to wonder at the levels of these fines. There is no actual harm done unless you actually hit something and I;m pretty sure that causing an accident while distracted has been against the law for quite a long time.
Not sure. IANAL but pretty sure that if it went to court and this was used as a defense with statements from the victim(s) then the case would probably end "no action taken" .
If this happens and the driver gets a £10000 fine then shortly thereafter expect stern action from the Silent Majority/Anonymous/UKIP/Anarchist/Green/etc Aligned Parties in the form of the immediate dissolving of Parliament and a General Election being called. The. Same. Day.
:-)
<redacted> if anyone in the .UK Govt wants to "collect" me for routine waterboarding. Bring it on punks, thanks to PRISM you already know who I am.
Penalties are pointless unless they are applied effectively. A little enforecement would go a long way. Drive on any UK major road _at_ the speed limit, and you'll find most other cars overtake you at high relative speed - sometimes at seriously high relative speed. And maneuvering in heavy traffic with one hand clamped to the ear is commonplace.These laws have become a public joke because almost everyone breaks them with impunity.
You guys made and make some of the nicest, most interesting motor vehicles in the world. I've owned a bunch of them, XKE, XK140, MG-TD, Lotus Elan (1970, which actually ran about once a payment), Triumph Bonneville, Vincent, and more than a few others including an MG-A for which I paid a lordly $8 (yep, eight bucks) and drove for over a year . . .
Why does your gub-mint hate cars so much? And why do they think talking on a cell phone is a one-way first class instant ticket to disaster? We do it all the time here, and our accident rate is comparable to yours and they DON'T let you talk on phones there while you drive.
If our government (and I do use the term "government" loosely) ever decided to take time off from ill-conceived military ventures abroad and tried to outlaw cell phones in cars, they wouldn't last ten seconds - every last one of them would be forcibly retired in a heartbeat, and it would probably be their last.
Taking away the NRA's guns would be absolute child's play compared to taking away the cell phones of a bazillion enraged SUV driving soccer moms, another bazillion teenagers, and another bazillion self-appointed "important people" who talk on cell phones constantly mostly to reassure themselves of their own importance.
I was going to say that our civilization hasn't ended because we 'murricans talk on cell phones while we drive, but the Euro viewpoint is that it never started, so I'll let that one go. Nevertheless, I really do think your DMV's vendetta against cell phones is more than a little misguided. (and yes, I've been to fair Albion several times - the fools at customs let me in - sure, you have a lot of traffic, but so do we.)
From my observation driving on the LA freeways people were also reading books and doing their hair while driving. On the surface streets I daily saw pileups at junctions in the rush hour and nearly had one myself due to the monotony of low speed, lane-disciplined driving combined with drowse-inducing effects of fatty breakfasts.