Drivers on phones!

[Herb]

I was in Liverpool yesterday to pick up my daughter from Uni. Was waiting in traffic close in to the city centre when two bikes caught my eye coming slowly through the traffic from behind.

The bikes were unmarked, black, and devoid of any decals or even manufacturer logos as far as I could see. One was a sports bike, possible a 675, one a tourer. The riders were both wearing police helmets and uniforms, though the hi-viz was more discreet than normal. They were looking in every car window for drivers on phones. Obviously, being in traffic, it didn't take long for them to find one.

I think they found a few actually, but a quick knock on the window was enough to make the driver realise the error of their ways without being heavy handed. Of course they found one woman who didn't realise they were police and would not stop texting when they knocked. I got a very pleasant feeling of schadenfruede when the blue lights went on. She soon stopped texting then, I could see her apologising....too late love, they stopped us crawling forward so she could pull over, hope they threw the book at the cocky bitch.

[Grip Fast]

Yes, fully support the police doing more of that. Too many people have no idea what's going on around them while they're driving, because they are on the !@*#% phone.

[Topcat]

Yes, fully support the police doing more of that. Too many people have no idea what's going on around them while they're driving, because they are on the !@*#% phone.

+1

[fontana]

Police also us HGV's to catch mobile phone users in buses, lorries etc.

[Hay Ewe^]

They do the same here in Queensland.
They should also stop idiots who drive with a little dog in the lap as well, often the dog is looking out the window!
S**** me it does.

[milleplod]

I rode my ST down to Jim Hill's in Long Eaton a few weeks ago, 20-odd miles of the M1 at around 8am midweek. I don't like riding on m'ways, never have, not even when I was on a full-livery Pan Euro. I reckon 30% of drivers were fiddling with a gadget of some sort - as I went up Felley near junction 27, the traffic had slowed to around 30mph behind the inevitable wagons doing interminably slooooow overtakes on each other, I trickled past a Jag XK - the 30-odd year old driver had his (big) tablet fired up on his lap, fingers of his right hand zipping all over it, as the car gently veered one way and then the other. Madness.

I reckon an obligatory 28-day ban is the way forward, it just needs more enforcement. It won't be too long before HATOs get enforcement powers for 'minor' offences, I think its already going through the legislation process, and while I think there should be more police on the roads rather than a fortune being spent on other agencies, at least there'll be more chance of the idiots being caught.

Pete

[slparry]

I rode my ST down to Jim Hill's in Long Eaton a few weeks ago, 20-odd miles of the M1 at around 8am midweek. I don't like riding on m'ways, never have, not even when I was on a full-livery Pan Euro. I reckon 30% of drivers were fiddling with a gadget of some sort - as I went up Felley near junction 27, the traffic had slowed to around 30mph behind the inevitable wagons doing interminably slooooow overtakes on each other, I trickled past a Jag XK - the 30-odd year old driver had his (big) tablet fired up on his lap, fingers of his right hand zipping all over it, as the car gently veered one way and then the other. Madness.

I reckon an obligatory 28-day ban is the way forward, it just needs more enforcement. It won't be too long before HATOs get enforcement powers for 'minor' offences, I think its already going through the legislation process, and while I think there should be more police on the roads rather than a fortune being spent on other agencies, at least there'll be more chance of the idiots being caught.

Pete

You're more generous than I'd be Pete with the 28 day ban, I seem to recall that using a mobile is worse than being under the influence of drink, that being the case a years ban would be my preferred option with a 3 year ban for a second offence and a lifetime ban for a third

[milleplod]

You're right Steve.....I must be going soft in my old age!

Pete

[Neil178]

6 points and a fine isn't working from the number of times I see it.
Back roads or motorway, so many are at it. I read somewhere it's a generation thing. So many new drivers have grown up surgically connected to their phone that it is second nature to use it.
I was in a long queue in the bank recently. A couple of girls, early 20's, were ahead of me.
One had a phone in her back pocket. She must have pulled it out and replaced it at least once every 30 seconds.
They just can't get by without them.

[The Teutonic Tangerine]

Yes, fully support the police doing more of that. Too many people have no idea what's going on around them while they're driving, because they are on the !@*#% phone.

One of the reasons I stopped commuting into London on a regular basis.

[HarrisBikeNut]

Come on guys, let's get real. How likely is it that someone using a phone, tablet etc will get caught? If there was a massive hike in the odds of being caught THEN the issue might decrease. But now???? The odds it seems to me are simply too low and make the risk more than acceptable.

[fontana]

Come on guys, let's get real. How likely is it that someone using a phone, tablet etc will get caught? If there was a massive hike in the odds of being caught THEN the issue might decrease. But now???? The odds it seems to me are simply too low and make the risk more than acceptable.

What the Government are trying to do, rightly in my opinion, through vigorous campaigning, is to make mobile phone use while driving anti social by attaching a stigma to it.
Just recently I was riding behind a driver blatantly on a phone, and at least three other drivers who saw her sounded their horns and gesticulated.
I once saw a guy pull alongside a driver on the phone at a set of lights, get out, go up to his window and shout "get off the f**king phone you w**ker
Hopefully one day it'll become like smoking.
It seems hard to believe now, that once upon a time, it was fine to light up in restaurants and shops.
Within a short space of time it has become unacceptable due to the dangers to others.
I think that'll happen with phones in vehicles, eventually.

[kfrogzx7]

Come on guys, let's get real. How likely is it that someone using a phone, tablet etc will get caught? If there was a massive hike in the odds of being caught THEN the issue might decrease. But now???? The odds it seems to me are simply too low and make the risk more than acceptable.

I agree about the likelihood of getting nicked, which is precisely why the penalty needs to be a lot higher.
It's a simple "market forces" approach to regulating societal behaviour that the government / law enforcement community seem to fail to grasp.
If you want to discourage / eradicate a behaviour you "price" it out of the "market" , if you can't "limit" supply you have to raise the "price".
So if people think they can get away with an antisocial behaviour you have to dramatically raise the price, ie make the penalty something that people can't ignore !!
It's simple, anybody caught on the phone gets a £1000 fine and gets specifically named to the press, no arguments, if they can't pay it's extracted from income or benefits.
The family and dependants might also suffer yes, but that would be point, when your spouse and kids think that you're a tosser and a loser you'll think twice in future.
Just a few prosecutions in each region of the country will grab local headlines and the perpetrator ( and yes, his/ her family ) will be vilified by friends and neighbours.
In essence why are our authorities afraid of deterrents that deter for crimes that are indefensible ?

[popsky]

Come on guys, let's get real. How likely is it that someone using a phone, tablet etc will get caught? If there was a massive hike in the odds of being caught THEN the issue might decrease. But now???? The odds it seems to me are simply too low and make the risk more than acceptable.

I agree about the likelihood of getting nicked, which is precisely why the penalty needs to be a lot higher.
It's a simple "market forces" approach to regulating societal behaviour that the government / law enforcement community seem to fail to grasp.
If you want to discourage / eradicate a behaviour you "price" it out of the "market" , if you can't "limit" supply you have to raise the "price".
So if people think they can get away with an antisocial behaviour you have to dramatically raise the price, ie make the penalty something that people can't ignore !!
It's simple, anybody caught on the phone gets a £1000 fine and gets specifically named to the press, no arguments, if they can't pay it's extracted from income or benefits.
The family and dependants might also suffer yes, but that would be point, when your spouse and kids think that you're a tosser and a loser you'll think twice in future.
Just a few prosecutions in each region of the country will grab local headlines and the perpetrator ( and yes, his/ her family ) will be vilified by friends and neighbours.
In essence why are our authorities afraid of deterrents that deter for crimes that are indefensible ?

If your standing in the upcoming election you've got my vote

[HarrisBikeNut]

Agree that the size of a fine needs to be raised BUT it will still be meaningless if the chances of getting caught remain low. That will involve more Police on the roads or some other method of catching perpetrators........ which I can see no likelihood of it happening. Allow members of the public to provide evidence?!?!?!
Having just about finished my teaching career after 38 years, the way that young people are utterly addicted to their phones, Facebook, Snap Chat etc etc is worrying to say the least.
Just to add fuel to the fire, doesn't new car design make the issue more likely with increased "connectivity" plus all the other stuff that provides distractions to drivers?