Worse than drink-driving: are YOU in our mobile phone gallery?

Bournemouth Echo: Worse than drink-driving: are YOU in our mobile phone gallery? Worse than drink-driving: are YOU in our mobile phone gallery?

IT’S more dangerous than drink-driving and yet thousands of motorists are still putting lives at risk by using their mobile phones behind the wheel.

The Echo went out to see how many people we could catch using their phones at the wheel at Cemetery Junction - and we repeatedly saw drivers breaking the law. See the full gallery here.

The county’s top traffic cop says talking, texting or looking at something on a phone while driving is extremely distracting and reminded drivers: “No call is worth taking behind the wheel.”

Last year 3,504 motorists were caught using their phones behind the wheel in Dorset – up from the 3,229 nabbed in 2010 and a 91 per cent increase on those caught in 2007 when the legislation was introduced.

The Institute of Advanced Motorists say these figures are just the tip of the iceberg with eight per cent of drivers admitting to using smartphones for email and social networking while driving – equivalent to a staggering 3.5 million licence holders across the country.

It reports using smartphones while driving is more dangerous than drink-driving or being high on cannabis behind the wheel.

Research has found texting on a mobile phone slows reaction times by 37.4 per cent and while driving alcohol at the legal limit slows reaction times by 12.5 per cent and cannabis by 21 per cent.

Chief Inspector Bob Nichols, of Dorset Police’s traffic unit, pictured inset, said: “Our message really is quite simple. The degree of distraction it causes is very serious.

“No call is worth taking behind the wheel.

“We have dealt with a number of fatal collisions over the years where we know that the use of a mobile phone was the cause or a significant factor in the collision.

Chf Insp Nichols said Dorset Police’s No Excuse campaign had helped spread the message that using a mobile phone while driving was illegal and people doing it would get caught.

Tackling motorists who use phones while driving is a priority for Dorset Police, who say driver distraction is one of the four main contributory factors in the severity of road collisions – known as the fatal four. The others are excessive and inappropriate speeds, drink or drug driving and not wearing a seat belt.

Chf Insp Nichols said drivers caught on their phones often came up with some “bizarre” excuses.

He said: “One driver was looking at pictures on his mobile phone and said it was OK because he wasn’t using the phone to text or call.”

They have also caught a new driver who had wedged their mobile phone in the steering wheel; and woman eating chips and curry sauce while texting and driving.

Anyone caught using a phone while driving will receive three penalty points on their licence and a £60 fine. Some motorists are offered the opportunity to take part in the Driver Awareness Course at a cost of £105 instead of having points.

The number of fixed-penalty tickets issued to drivers caught using a hand-held mobile phone were:

• 2007: 1,837

• 2008: 1,716

• 2009: 2,150

• 2010: 3,229

• 2011: 3,502

• 2012 (Jan and Feb): 452

In 2009 Gwent Police produced a dramatic video aimed at showing teeenagers the danger of texting and driving. We have embedded it below. It's very graphic, so if you have young children, check it before you let them watch it.

Comments (86)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:06am Wed 18 Apr 12

Jacamo says...

I am sure if these people lost someone due to a driver using his/her mobile - they wouldnt do it anymore - you know what you need to do with these photos Bournemouth Echo - do it.
I am sure if these people lost someone due to a driver using his/her mobile - they wouldnt do it anymore - you know what you need to do with these photos Bournemouth Echo - do it. Jacamo

9:09am Wed 18 Apr 12

pete woodley says...

Future killers the lot of them.
Future killers the lot of them. pete woodley

9:14am Wed 18 Apr 12

High Treason says...

As with all driving offences the fines are to low to act as a deterrent. Double the fines plus an automatic one month ban. For persistent offenders take the car and sell it.
As with all driving offences the fines are to low to act as a deterrent. Double the fines plus an automatic one month ban. For persistent offenders take the car and sell it. High Treason

9:16am Wed 18 Apr 12

BarrHumbug says...

Not that I condone it, I don't, its very dangerous, a major distraction and totally unnecessary, but for the Echo to take multiple shoots of the same people and then say "look we caught all these people using their phones" is a bit slack. And as for the woman in the gold car? Does she work for the Echo? Who goes around making calls like that? It looked like she was posing for the camera with her phone "Look at me, i've got an iPhone, did you catch that? here let me show it to you clearer"
Not that I condone it, I don't, its very dangerous, a major distraction and totally unnecessary, but for the Echo to take multiple shoots of the same people and then say "look we caught all these people using their phones" is a bit slack. And as for the woman in the gold car? Does she work for the Echo? Who goes around making calls like that? It looked like she was posing for the camera with her phone "Look at me, i've got an iPhone, did you catch that? here let me show it to you clearer" BarrHumbug

9:18am Wed 18 Apr 12

Upkeep says...

Good one Echo, keep it up. How often do we wait at traffic lights and see the person in front, head down, sending or reading texts. Usually women Im afraid to say.
Good one Echo, keep it up. How often do we wait at traffic lights and see the person in front, head down, sending or reading texts. Usually women Im afraid to say. Upkeep

9:18am Wed 18 Apr 12

saynomore says...

The fine is obviously not enough deterrent neither are the points given,the law should toughen up.If drivers are caught more than once then a five year ban and a £500 fine would deter these muppets,and for the first time they should get £500 fine and 6 points,come on you magistrates get some balls.
The fine is obviously not enough deterrent neither are the points given,the law should toughen up.If drivers are caught more than once then a five year ban and a £500 fine would deter these muppets,and for the first time they should get £500 fine and 6 points,come on you magistrates get some balls. saynomore

9:18am Wed 18 Apr 12

whataboutthat says...

Echo vigilantes ho!
Echo vigilantes ho! whataboutthat

9:27am Wed 18 Apr 12

benjamin says...

I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?
I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth? benjamin

9:27am Wed 18 Apr 12

InkZ says...

So how many of these are people sat waiting at lights and how many are people driving? Don't condone it, but surely if they are waiting at lights the most dangerous thing they are doing is provoking the driver behind to some road rage for not pulling away quick enough.

There's really no excuse to not have hands free, you can buy them for £15 to clip on your sunvisor and it will save you a fine, or hitting someone. Amazon or Play are great places to buy these.
So how many of these are people sat waiting at lights and how many are people driving? Don't condone it, but surely if they are waiting at lights the most dangerous thing they are doing is provoking the driver behind to some road rage for not pulling away quick enough. There's really no excuse to not have hands free, you can buy them for £15 to clip on your sunvisor and it will save you a fine, or hitting someone. Amazon or Play are great places to buy these. InkZ

9:28am Wed 18 Apr 12

whataboutthat says...

Is it a survey or a confessional? Nobody's going to tick yes - are they?
Is it a survey or a confessional? Nobody's going to tick yes - are they? whataboutthat

9:34am Wed 18 Apr 12

termau69 says...

For once i congratulate the Echo on making a move in the right direction on this,should be done on a regular basis and if the driver of the red refuse truck who almost took the front of my car off while negotiating a right turn and using his phone on Monday is reading this ive got your number and slowly tracking you down
For once i congratulate the Echo on making a move in the right direction on this,should be done on a regular basis and if the driver of the red refuse truck who almost took the front of my car off while negotiating a right turn and using his phone on Monday is reading this ive got your number and slowly tracking you down termau69

9:44am Wed 18 Apr 12

BarrHumbug says...

9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there? If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall? And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement! BarrHumbug

9:50am Wed 18 Apr 12

termau69 says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
Yet someone else trying to use percentages to back up a comment it really means nothing, the fact is the report highlights that drivers are still prepared to endanger peoples lives by using mobiles how can you say its a half hearted report
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: 9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there? If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall? And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement![/p][/quote]Yet someone else trying to use percentages to back up a comment it really means nothing, the fact is the report highlights that drivers are still prepared to endanger peoples lives by using mobiles how can you say its a half hearted report termau69

9:59am Wed 18 Apr 12

Upkeep says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then.
2007...1837 cases
2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: 9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there? If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall? And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement![/p][/quote]Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then. 2007...1837 cases 2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual. Upkeep

10:25am Wed 18 Apr 12

termau69 says...

Upkeep wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then.
2007...1837 cases
2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.
Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol
[quote][p][bold]Upkeep[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: 9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there? If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall? And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement![/p][/quote]Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then. 2007...1837 cases 2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.[/p][/quote]Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol termau69

10:26am Wed 18 Apr 12

Phixer says...

"Worse than drink-driving"


Says who? People using a mobile phone at least have their faculties about them. Drunk and drugged drivers won't even know what planet they are on.


Another detailed accurate Echo report to make a headline and sell papers - not about road safety.
"Worse than drink-driving" Says who? People using a mobile phone at least have their faculties about them. Drunk and drugged drivers won't even know what planet they are on. Another detailed accurate Echo report to make a headline and sell papers - not about road safety. Phixer

10:28am Wed 18 Apr 12

BarrHumbug says...

termau69 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
Yet someone else trying to use percentages to back up a comment it really means nothing, the fact is the report highlights that drivers are still prepared to endanger peoples lives by using mobiles how can you say its a half hearted report
Its a half hearted report because it only reports the story from one side, the scaremongering "don't go outside, you'll die" type of reporting that the papers and media like to stuff down our throats. We all know people still do it, in the same way they also speed or drink and drive but its the governments and polices job to educate us of the dangers and enforce the law so as to reduce the number of people doing it. Without any correlating figures it just makes it look like all drivers do it and that the police are failing in their duty.
What would you think if this story said that funding cancer research is a waste of money because people are still dying from it?
[quote][p][bold]termau69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: 9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there? If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall? And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement![/p][/quote]Yet someone else trying to use percentages to back up a comment it really means nothing, the fact is the report highlights that drivers are still prepared to endanger peoples lives by using mobiles how can you say its a half hearted report[/p][/quote]Its a half hearted report because it only reports the story from one side, the scaremongering "don't go outside, you'll die" type of reporting that the papers and media like to stuff down our throats. We all know people still do it, in the same way they also speed or drink and drive but its the governments and polices job to educate us of the dangers and enforce the law so as to reduce the number of people doing it. Without any correlating figures it just makes it look like all drivers do it and that the police are failing in their duty. What would you think if this story said that funding cancer research is a waste of money because people are still dying from it? BarrHumbug

10:35am Wed 18 Apr 12

Sgt McNutt says...

I just don't get this. Every day I'll see someone on a mobile whilst driving. The Echo can capture 9 people at one location in a short period of time. Why haven't the police done something similar? Everyone agrees this is a dangerous practice (except the offenders).
I just don't get this. Every day I'll see someone on a mobile whilst driving. The Echo can capture 9 people at one location in a short period of time. Why haven't the police done something similar? Everyone agrees this is a dangerous practice (except the offenders). Sgt McNutt

10:46am Wed 18 Apr 12

The Liberal says...

I've only ever used a mobile at the wheel once, on a business trip when somebody in the back seat handed me a phone to take a call from the office. I immediately felt very distracted by it and finished the call quickly. After that I would never be tempted to use a phone at the wheel again.
I've only ever used a mobile at the wheel once, on a business trip when somebody in the back seat handed me a phone to take a call from the office. I immediately felt very distracted by it and finished the call quickly. After that I would never be tempted to use a phone at the wheel again. The Liberal

10:49am Wed 18 Apr 12

BmthNewshound says...

People continue to use their phones whilst driving because they know that the chance is they'll get away with it. You hardly ever see police patrolling the roads and whilst mobile speed cameras are common there is no equivalent effort put into stopping and fining people using their mobile phones.
.
It wasn't that long ago that drinking and driving was seen as acceptable. It was only after tougher laws and enforcement was introduced and years of government advertising campaigns that people have finally accepted that drinking and driving is not only illegal but socially unacceptable.
.
They should also crack down on people sticking sat navs on their windscreen and make them audio-only.
People continue to use their phones whilst driving because they know that the chance is they'll get away with it. You hardly ever see police patrolling the roads and whilst mobile speed cameras are common there is no equivalent effort put into stopping and fining people using their mobile phones. . It wasn't that long ago that drinking and driving was seen as acceptable. It was only after tougher laws and enforcement was introduced and years of government advertising campaigns that people have finally accepted that drinking and driving is not only illegal but socially unacceptable. . They should also crack down on people sticking sat navs on their windscreen and make them audio-only. BmthNewshound

10:49am Wed 18 Apr 12

BarrHumbug says...

termau69 wrote:
Upkeep wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then.
2007...1837 cases
2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.
Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol
Ahh termau69 you've now got the point. EXACTLY what I was making in my first comment, the paper has manipulated the figure to portray the report to how they want it to be read.
As for the Police's figures UpKeep well you also have to take into account that over that period the forces have had to face budget cuts and a reduction in officers but are no doubt expected to keep up or increase on their solved crime figures. The motorist is always an easy target for bolstering those figures?
[quote][p][bold]termau69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Upkeep[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: 9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there? If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall? And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement![/p][/quote]Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then. 2007...1837 cases 2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.[/p][/quote]Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol[/p][/quote]Ahh termau69 you've now got the point. EXACTLY what I was making in my first comment, the paper has manipulated the figure to portray the report to how they want it to be read. As for the Police's figures UpKeep well you also have to take into account that over that period the forces have had to face budget cuts and a reduction in officers but are no doubt expected to keep up or increase on their solved crime figures. The motorist is always an easy target for bolstering those figures? BarrHumbug

10:51am Wed 18 Apr 12

ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH says...

Phoning while driving is definitely a no no! Especially in this country. So many drivers seem to drive around like maniacs. Cab drivers, people taking short cuts (rat runs) on the way to work, selfish people in general that consider themselves more important than pedestrians with children. Experience it constantly/daily. Now in the places like Florida, roads are wider, mostly straight and it's the norm to just "cruise", with strict speed limits in place (eg 20mph limit)... people there generally don't rush around. My point is it's less dangerous there mainly due to most cars being automatic (as opposed to stick shift - manual gears). Why can't we learn over here? Then there'd be no need for speed bumps ("sleeping policemen")?
Phoning while driving is definitely a no no! Especially in this country. So many drivers seem to drive around like maniacs. Cab drivers, people taking short cuts (rat runs) on the way to work, selfish people in general that consider themselves more important than pedestrians with children. Experience it constantly/daily. Now in the places like Florida, roads are wider, mostly straight and it's the norm to just "cruise", with strict speed limits in place (eg 20mph limit)... people there generally don't rush around. My point is it's less dangerous there mainly due to most cars being automatic (as opposed to stick shift - manual gears). Why can't we learn over here? Then there'd be no need for speed bumps ("sleeping policemen")? ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH

11:00am Wed 18 Apr 12

termau69 says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
termau69 wrote:
Upkeep wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then.
2007...1837 cases
2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.
Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol
Ahh termau69 you've now got the point. EXACTLY what I was making in my first comment, the paper has manipulated the figure to portray the report to how they want it to be read.
As for the Police's figures UpKeep well you also have to take into account that over that period the forces have had to face budget cuts and a reduction in officers but are no doubt expected to keep up or increase on their solved crime figures. The motorist is always an easy target for bolstering those figures?
Dont be so patronising i never mentioned the Echo using figures as it is irrelevent the point is its illegal and dangerous and the more it gets highlighted the more chance of saving injuries to other road users and as for Phixers comment the driver who would have hit me if i hadnt reversed had no idea who was where the concentration was on the phone not on the road
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]termau69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Upkeep[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: 9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there? If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall? And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement![/p][/quote]Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then. 2007...1837 cases 2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.[/p][/quote]Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol[/p][/quote]Ahh termau69 you've now got the point. EXACTLY what I was making in my first comment, the paper has manipulated the figure to portray the report to how they want it to be read. As for the Police's figures UpKeep well you also have to take into account that over that period the forces have had to face budget cuts and a reduction in officers but are no doubt expected to keep up or increase on their solved crime figures. The motorist is always an easy target for bolstering those figures?[/p][/quote]Dont be so patronising i never mentioned the Echo using figures as it is irrelevent the point is its illegal and dangerous and the more it gets highlighted the more chance of saving injuries to other road users and as for Phixers comment the driver who would have hit me if i hadnt reversed had no idea who was where the concentration was on the phone not on the road termau69

11:14am Wed 18 Apr 12

Upkeep says...

A few years ago Gwent Police released a video recreating a very nasty accident in which mobile phone use was the underlying factor.
Once you`ve seen that video you will never want to use a mobile whilst driving. Facts and statistics are irrelevent.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=pDOmwjgKB
cI
A few years ago Gwent Police released a video recreating a very nasty accident in which mobile phone use was the underlying factor. Once you`ve seen that video you will never want to use a mobile whilst driving. Facts and statistics are irrelevent. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=pDOmwjgKB cI Upkeep

11:18am Wed 18 Apr 12

beachcomber1 says...

fiddling about and looking at the satnav is just as distracting.
fiddling about and looking at the satnav is just as distracting. beachcomber1

11:21am Wed 18 Apr 12

ashleycross says...

Next project for you, and I fully approve of this one having had two friends whose best friends were killed in car crashes and another whose grandparents were killed in one, is a report on how many people have been fined using the video car at school gates in poole this year. It's working very well at my kids' schools but there are still a few parents who don't understand their responsibilities and a list of fines would be useful so that I can quote it to them, or we can get it printed in the school news.
Next project for you, and I fully approve of this one having had two friends whose best friends were killed in car crashes and another whose grandparents were killed in one, is a report on how many people have been fined using the video car at school gates in poole this year. It's working very well at my kids' schools but there are still a few parents who don't understand their responsibilities and a list of fines would be useful so that I can quote it to them, or we can get it printed in the school news. ashleycross

11:26am Wed 18 Apr 12

John T says...

whataboutthat wrote:
Is it a survey or a confessional? Nobody's going to tick yes - are they?
I claim the Fifth Amendment.
[quote][p][bold]whataboutthat[/bold] wrote: Is it a survey or a confessional? Nobody's going to tick yes - are they?[/p][/quote]I claim the Fifth Amendment. John T

11:34am Wed 18 Apr 12

BarrHumbug says...

termau69 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
termau69 wrote:
Upkeep wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then.
2007...1837 cases
2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.
Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol
Ahh termau69 you've now got the point. EXACTLY what I was making in my first comment, the paper has manipulated the figure to portray the report to how they want it to be read.
As for the Police's figures UpKeep well you also have to take into account that over that period the forces have had to face budget cuts and a reduction in officers but are no doubt expected to keep up or increase on their solved crime figures. The motorist is always an easy target for bolstering those figures?
Dont be so patronising i never mentioned the Echo using figures as it is irrelevent the point is its illegal and dangerous and the more it gets highlighted the more chance of saving injuries to other road users and as for Phixers comment the driver who would have hit me if i hadnt reversed had no idea who was where the concentration was on the phone not on the road
If you think figures are irrelevant then surely Upkeep's comment is irrelevant too? But you were quick to praise their comments against mine?
Figures aren't irrelevant, I could just as easily go down there tomorrow take a picture of 10 drivers not using their phone and write a story saying that there is a zero rate of laws being broken, but then that's not very interesting journalism is it, nor is it fair or accurate? Far better to write a scaremongering story that all road users are killers!
The story is also inaccurate because it has been proved that using a smart phone emailing, texting and updating social networks while driving is more dangerous than drink driving, not just talking on a phone and yet the paper have chosen to use that headline grabbing title and applied it to every person on there phone. How many of the people they snapped were using a smart phone and how many of those were emailing/texting/upd
ating social networks?
Like I originally said I don't condone it, its wrong. But my gripe is with the paper taking the facts, discarding the parts that don't suit and running it under a headline to create a maximum effect.
[quote][p][bold]termau69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]termau69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Upkeep[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: 9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there? If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall? And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement![/p][/quote]Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then. 2007...1837 cases 2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.[/p][/quote]Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol[/p][/quote]Ahh termau69 you've now got the point. EXACTLY what I was making in my first comment, the paper has manipulated the figure to portray the report to how they want it to be read. As for the Police's figures UpKeep well you also have to take into account that over that period the forces have had to face budget cuts and a reduction in officers but are no doubt expected to keep up or increase on their solved crime figures. The motorist is always an easy target for bolstering those figures?[/p][/quote]Dont be so patronising i never mentioned the Echo using figures as it is irrelevent the point is its illegal and dangerous and the more it gets highlighted the more chance of saving injuries to other road users and as for Phixers comment the driver who would have hit me if i hadnt reversed had no idea who was where the concentration was on the phone not on the road[/p][/quote]If you think figures are irrelevant then surely Upkeep's comment is irrelevant too? But you were quick to praise their comments against mine? Figures aren't irrelevant, I could just as easily go down there tomorrow take a picture of 10 drivers not using their phone and write a story saying that there is a zero rate of laws being broken, but then that's not very interesting journalism is it, nor is it fair or accurate? Far better to write a scaremongering story that all road users are killers! The story is also inaccurate because it has been proved that using a smart phone emailing, texting and updating social networks while driving is more dangerous than drink driving, not just talking on a phone and yet the paper have chosen to use that headline grabbing title and applied it to every person on there phone. How many of the people they snapped were using a smart phone and how many of those were emailing/texting/upd ating social networks? Like I originally said I don't condone it, its wrong. But my gripe is with the paper taking the facts, discarding the parts that don't suit and running it under a headline to create a maximum effect. BarrHumbug

11:44am Wed 18 Apr 12

Upkeep says...

BarrHumbug says
"Like I originally said I don't condone it, its wrong. But my gripe is with the paper taking the facts, discarding the parts that don't suit and running it under a headline to create a maximum effect."

Are there any papers that dont do that ?
BarrHumbug says "Like I originally said I don't condone it, its wrong. But my gripe is with the paper taking the facts, discarding the parts that don't suit and running it under a headline to create a maximum effect." Are there any papers that dont do that ? Upkeep

11:59am Wed 18 Apr 12

mikey2gorgeous says...

It's a shame the IAM & others don't consider speeding to be as serious.
Given the figures above on the effect on reaction times, someone driving at 30 who's at the drink/drive limit will stop in 117 feet instead of 109 sober.
At 35 a sober driver will take 136 feet (http://www.csgnetwo
rk.com/stopdistinfo.
html). Lots of commenters on this site say 35 is 'only just' over the limit and prosecuting people for doing 37 in a 30 zone is a 'war on the motorist' or a 'tax'.
At 35 in a 30 you are taking the same risks with other people's lives as if you were well over the drink limit. Yet somehow it's considered a 'lesser' evil - something that's acceptable not for the immoral behaviour it really is.
It's a shame the IAM & others don't consider speeding to be as serious. Given the figures above on the effect on reaction times, someone driving at 30 who's at the drink/drive limit will stop in 117 feet instead of 109 sober. At 35 a sober driver will take 136 feet (http://www.csgnetwo rk.com/stopdistinfo. html). Lots of commenters on this site say 35 is 'only just' over the limit and prosecuting people for doing 37 in a 30 zone is a 'war on the motorist' or a 'tax'. At 35 in a 30 you are taking the same risks with other people's lives as if you were well over the drink limit. Yet somehow it's considered a 'lesser' evil - something that's acceptable not for the immoral behaviour it really is. mikey2gorgeous

12:17pm Wed 18 Apr 12

hammer says...

Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous! hammer

12:25pm Wed 18 Apr 12

mikey2gorgeous says...

hammer wrote:
Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous.
Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous![/p][/quote]It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up? mikey2gorgeous

12:45pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Mindvor says...

hammer wrote:
Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
We need an alternative to Godwin's Law. Its usually about a page or so of comments before any Echo discussion turns to "cyclists".
Won't someone think of the children!?
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous![/p][/quote]We need an alternative to Godwin's Law. Its usually about a page or so of comments before any Echo discussion turns to "cyclists". Won't someone think of the children!? Mindvor

1:10pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Pablo23 says...

Agreed it is dangerous, but why haven't the other things I've seen ever highlighted...

Young ladies applying their makup in the rear view mirror whilst driving, people reading maps, people making sandwiches on the move.

Is there really so little spare time in the mornings?
Agreed it is dangerous, but why haven't the other things I've seen ever highlighted... Young ladies applying their makup in the rear view mirror whilst driving, people reading maps, people making sandwiches on the move. Is there really so little spare time in the mornings? Pablo23

1:10pm Wed 18 Apr 12

ekimnoslen says...

If using a mobile phone IS as dangerous as drink driving then apply the same penalty. 12 months ban. That should do it.
If using a mobile phone IS as dangerous as drink driving then apply the same penalty. 12 months ban. That should do it. ekimnoslen

1:15pm Wed 18 Apr 12

BarrHumbug says...

Upkeep wrote:
BarrHumbug says
"Like I originally said I don't condone it, its wrong. But my gripe is with the paper taking the facts, discarding the parts that don't suit and running it under a headline to create a maximum effect."

Are there any papers that dont do that ?
No. I like to have a go at them all! LOL
[quote][p][bold]Upkeep[/bold] wrote: BarrHumbug says "Like I originally said I don't condone it, its wrong. But my gripe is with the paper taking the facts, discarding the parts that don't suit and running it under a headline to create a maximum effect." Are there any papers that dont do that ?[/p][/quote]No. I like to have a go at them all! LOL BarrHumbug

1:27pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Yawwwn! says...

The Daily Echo is implying these people are guilty, but how do they know the drivers were not calling 999 as an emergency call? That is allowed whilst you are driving. If anyone was making an emergency call...you could probably sue The Daily Echo.
The Daily Echo is implying these people are guilty, but how do they know the drivers were not calling 999 as an emergency call? That is allowed whilst you are driving. If anyone was making an emergency call...you could probably sue The Daily Echo. Yawwwn!

2:07pm Wed 18 Apr 12

termau69 says...

Yawwwn! wrote:
The Daily Echo is implying these people are guilty, but how do they know the drivers were not calling 999 as an emergency call? That is allowed whilst you are driving. If anyone was making an emergency call...you could probably sue The Daily Echo.
Well of course why didnt we think of that we are the stupid ones
[quote][p][bold]Yawwwn![/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo is implying these people are guilty, but how do they know the drivers were not calling 999 as an emergency call? That is allowed whilst you are driving. If anyone was making an emergency call...you could probably sue The Daily Echo.[/p][/quote]Well of course why didnt we think of that we are the stupid ones termau69

2:16pm Wed 18 Apr 12

termau69 says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
termau69 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
termau69 wrote:
Upkeep wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then.
2007...1837 cases
2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.
Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol
Ahh termau69 you've now got the point. EXACTLY what I was making in my first comment, the paper has manipulated the figure to portray the report to how they want it to be read.
As for the Police's figures UpKeep well you also have to take into account that over that period the forces have had to face budget cuts and a reduction in officers but are no doubt expected to keep up or increase on their solved crime figures. The motorist is always an easy target for bolstering those figures?
Dont be so patronising i never mentioned the Echo using figures as it is irrelevent the point is its illegal and dangerous and the more it gets highlighted the more chance of saving injuries to other road users and as for Phixers comment the driver who would have hit me if i hadnt reversed had no idea who was where the concentration was on the phone not on the road
If you think figures are irrelevant then surely Upkeep's comment is irrelevant too? But you were quick to praise their comments against mine?
Figures aren't irrelevant, I could just as easily go down there tomorrow take a picture of 10 drivers not using their phone and write a story saying that there is a zero rate of laws being broken, but then that's not very interesting journalism is it, nor is it fair or accurate? Far better to write a scaremongering story that all road users are killers!
The story is also inaccurate because it has been proved that using a smart phone emailing, texting and updating social networks while driving is more dangerous than drink driving, not just talking on a phone and yet the paper have chosen to use that headline grabbing title and applied it to every person on there phone. How many of the people they snapped were using a smart phone and how many of those were emailing/texting/upd

ating social networks?
Like I originally said I don't condone it, its wrong. But my gripe is with the paper taking the facts, discarding the parts that don't suit and running it under a headline to create a maximum effect.
It must be me but if you can go and get pictures to prove a point surely that shows that they can be manipulated to your advantage thus then being worthless antway if you are happy thats all that matters what i do not understand is that any publicity of this kind must be a good thing but people still want to have a pop at the Echo which i have in the past but i think its an appropriate storynot scaremongering at all but you choose to translate it as such
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]termau69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]termau69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Upkeep[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: 9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there? If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall? And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement![/p][/quote]Ah yes, but in 2008 they were fining people as the law was in then. 2007...1837 cases 2008...1716 cases, thats more than a 91% increase. You know as well as I that statistics can be read and twisted to suit the individual.[/p][/quote]Thank goodness someone else sees that figures and stats can be manipulated to what one wants.I THANK YOU Upkeep lol[/p][/quote]Ahh termau69 you've now got the point. EXACTLY what I was making in my first comment, the paper has manipulated the figure to portray the report to how they want it to be read. As for the Police's figures UpKeep well you also have to take into account that over that period the forces have had to face budget cuts and a reduction in officers but are no doubt expected to keep up or increase on their solved crime figures. The motorist is always an easy target for bolstering those figures?[/p][/quote]Dont be so patronising i never mentioned the Echo using figures as it is irrelevent the point is its illegal and dangerous and the more it gets highlighted the more chance of saving injuries to other road users and as for Phixers comment the driver who would have hit me if i hadnt reversed had no idea who was where the concentration was on the phone not on the road[/p][/quote]If you think figures are irrelevant then surely Upkeep's comment is irrelevant too? But you were quick to praise their comments against mine? Figures aren't irrelevant, I could just as easily go down there tomorrow take a picture of 10 drivers not using their phone and write a story saying that there is a zero rate of laws being broken, but then that's not very interesting journalism is it, nor is it fair or accurate? Far better to write a scaremongering story that all road users are killers! The story is also inaccurate because it has been proved that using a smart phone emailing, texting and updating social networks while driving is more dangerous than drink driving, not just talking on a phone and yet the paper have chosen to use that headline grabbing title and applied it to every person on there phone. How many of the people they snapped were using a smart phone and how many of those were emailing/texting/upd ating social networks? Like I originally said I don't condone it, its wrong. But my gripe is with the paper taking the facts, discarding the parts that don't suit and running it under a headline to create a maximum effect.[/p][/quote]It must be me but if you can go and get pictures to prove a point surely that shows that they can be manipulated to your advantage thus then being worthless antway if you are happy thats all that matters what i do not understand is that any publicity of this kind must be a good thing but people still want to have a pop at the Echo which i have in the past but i think its an appropriate storynot scaremongering at all but you choose to translate it as such termau69

2:24pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Justin666 says...

"Then there'd be no need for speed bumps ("sleeping policemen")?" somewhere above.
Actually the Concil has solved the problem of sleeping policemen (Bumps) By simply allowing the roads to deteriorate it is almost impossible to drive faster than 20mph. Unless you are prepared to totally trash your car.
I dont agree with mobile use in cars but it is certainly not to be compared with drink driving.
"Then there'd be no need for speed bumps ("sleeping policemen")?" somewhere above. Actually the Concil has solved the problem of sleeping policemen (Bumps) By simply allowing the roads to deteriorate it is almost impossible to drive faster than 20mph. Unless you are prepared to totally trash your car. I dont agree with mobile use in cars but it is certainly not to be compared with drink driving. Justin666

2:41pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Schooners says...

If you feel strongly then get behind this locally run campaign.

www.facebook.com/Cap
tainHonkOff


HONK OFF is a road safety campaign designed specifically at shaming Mobile Drivers into no longer breaking the law.

HONK OFF is an open group to all and has the support of 'Road Safety'.
If you feel strongly then get behind this locally run campaign. www.facebook.com/Cap tainHonkOff HONK OFF is a road safety campaign designed specifically at shaming Mobile Drivers into no longer breaking the law. HONK OFF is an open group to all and has the support of 'Road Safety'. Schooners

3:15pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Say-it-how-it-is says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
hammer wrote:
Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous.
Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous![/p][/quote]It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?[/p][/quote]Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike. Say-it-how-it-is

3:20pm Wed 18 Apr 12

mikey2gorgeous says...

Say-it-how-it-is wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
hammer wrote:
Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous.
Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.
Not according to the government website: (http://www.direct.g
ov.uk/en/TravelAndTr
ansport/Roadsafetyad
vice/DG_188761)
I've been told by the police that it's totally illegal to ride 2 abreast. On 2 separate occasions! Also that a witnessed, physical assault on me by a motorist was 'not a prosecutable offence'
Don't believe everything the Police tell you!
[quote][p][bold]Say-it-how-it-is[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous![/p][/quote]It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?[/p][/quote]Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.[/p][/quote]Not according to the government website: (http://www.direct.g ov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ansport/Roadsafetyad vice/DG_188761) I've been told by the police that it's totally illegal to ride 2 abreast. On 2 separate occasions! Also that a witnessed, physical assault on me by a motorist was 'not a prosecutable offence' Don't believe everything the Police tell you! mikey2gorgeous

3:22pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Merleyman says...

A £60 fine for dangerous driving and a £70 fine for parking on a single yellow line!!

As earlier posts have said. Make it a £500 fine for using mobile phone whilst driving.
A £60 fine for dangerous driving and a £70 fine for parking on a single yellow line!! As earlier posts have said. Make it a £500 fine for using mobile phone whilst driving. Merleyman

3:23pm Wed 18 Apr 12

hammer says...

Say-it-how-it-is wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
hammer wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
[quote][p][bold]Say-it-how-it-is[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous![/p][/quote]It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?[/p][/quote]Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.[/p][/quote]So put that in your pipe and smoke it! hammer

3:26pm Wed 18 Apr 12

termau69 says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Say-it-how-it-is wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
hammer wrote:
Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous.
Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.
Not according to the government website: (http://www.direct.g

ov.uk/en/TravelAndTr

ansport/Roadsafetyad

vice/DG_188761)
I've been told by the police that it's totally illegal to ride 2 abreast. On 2 separate occasions! Also that a witnessed, physical assault on me by a motorist was 'not a prosecutable offence'
Don't believe everything the Police tell you!
It will be nice when there is a cycling blog then the small minority of cycle users who are intent on high-jacking other spaces can have their say and leave the rest of us to the topic concerned which is car drivers
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Say-it-how-it-is[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous![/p][/quote]It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?[/p][/quote]Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.[/p][/quote]Not according to the government website: (http://www.direct.g ov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ansport/Roadsafetyad vice/DG_188761) I've been told by the police that it's totally illegal to ride 2 abreast. On 2 separate occasions! Also that a witnessed, physical assault on me by a motorist was 'not a prosecutable offence' Don't believe everything the Police tell you![/p][/quote]It will be nice when there is a cycling blog then the small minority of cycle users who are intent on high-jacking other spaces can have their say and leave the rest of us to the topic concerned which is car drivers termau69

3:54pm Wed 18 Apr 12

ragj195 says...

termau69 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there?
If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall?
And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement!
Yet someone else trying to use percentages to back up a comment it really means nothing, the fact is the report highlights that drivers are still prepared to endanger peoples lives by using mobiles how can you say its a half hearted report
Yeah, lets not let statistics and facts get in the way of a good story!
[quote][p][bold]termau69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: 9 out of those 19 photos were of different people actually using their phones, and as per usual a half hearted report. It doesn't state how long they were there taking the photo's or the total number of cars that passed through the junction during the time they were there? If they were there for 2 hours and 1000 cars past through in that time, 8 a minute, then that's 0.9 percent. Doesn't sound so dramatic now does it? And I bet if they had done the same survey in 2007 before the law came in they would find that figure is a dramatic fall? And the same goes for the police figures, how can they say its a 91percent increase over 2007 when back then they weren't fining people for it, a pointless statement![/p][/quote]Yet someone else trying to use percentages to back up a comment it really means nothing, the fact is the report highlights that drivers are still prepared to endanger peoples lives by using mobiles how can you say its a half hearted report[/p][/quote]Yeah, lets not let statistics and facts get in the way of a good story! ragj195

3:59pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Franks Tank says...

There is a cycling blog. Unfortunately it is regularly hijacked by a motor bike rider with a stack of 78s.
There is a cycling blog. Unfortunately it is regularly hijacked by a motor bike rider with a stack of 78s. Franks Tank

4:23pm Wed 18 Apr 12

hammer says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Say-it-how-it-is wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
hammer wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.
Not according to the government website: (http://www.direct.g ov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ansport/Roadsafetyad vice/DG_188761) I've been told by the police that it's totally illegal to ride 2 abreast. On 2 separate occasions! Also that a witnessed, physical assault on me by a motorist was 'not a prosecutable offence' Don't believe everything the Police tell you!
I find it very hard to believe that anyone would want to assault such a nice person as you LOL
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Say-it-how-it-is[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous![/p][/quote]It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?[/p][/quote]Sorry bit it is. Ive been told by a police officer that this is against the law using your phone when ridding a bike.[/p][/quote]Not according to the government website: (http://www.direct.g ov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ansport/Roadsafetyad vice/DG_188761) I've been told by the police that it's totally illegal to ride 2 abreast. On 2 separate occasions! Also that a witnessed, physical assault on me by a motorist was 'not a prosecutable offence' Don't believe everything the Police tell you![/p][/quote]I find it very hard to believe that anyone would want to assault such a nice person as you LOL hammer

4:54pm Wed 18 Apr 12

hammer says...

Franks Tank wrote:
There is a cycling blog. Unfortunately it is regularly hijacked by a motor bike rider with a stack of 78s.
WTF are you on about?
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: There is a cycling blog. Unfortunately it is regularly hijacked by a motor bike rider with a stack of 78s.[/p][/quote]WTF are you on about? hammer

5:20pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Reader Echo says...

Here is my overnight solution and cure to the problem, if you are caught red handed on camera and it can be proved beyond doubt:
1) Your car will be crushed.
2) You will get a £10,000 fine.
3) You will get a three year ban.

Until the legal system takes a stance like the above nothing will change.
Here is my overnight solution and cure to the problem, if you are caught red handed on camera and it can be proved beyond doubt: 1) Your car will be crushed. 2) You will get a £10,000 fine. 3) You will get a three year ban. Until the legal system takes a stance like the above nothing will change. Reader Echo

5:48pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Bmthdad says...

It is blindingly obvious that doing ANYTHING that could cause a fatal accident is a stupid thing to do.
So any moron that uses a phone whilst driving/cycling/moto
rcycling should be deemed unfit to do so and the privilege of being able to use the road removed for a suitable amount of time, and fined heavily.
It is blindingly obvious that doing ANYTHING that could cause a fatal accident is a stupid thing to do. So any moron that uses a phone whilst driving/cycling/moto rcycling should be deemed unfit to do so and the privilege of being able to use the road removed for a suitable amount of time, and fined heavily. Bmthdad

5:50pm Wed 18 Apr 12

hrothgar says...

I bet that these people are the first to condemn everyone else who breaks the law and would want to put them in prison and throw away the key. Probably, very righteous when it comes to dealing with other law breakers.
The present law requiring only 3 points endorsed and a small £60 fine is a joke. No Insurance gets 6 points & possibly hundreds of pounds fine. Driving while using a handheld phone should be punished the same as drink driving. And drink driving can mean custody!
I bet that these people are the first to condemn everyone else who breaks the law and would want to put them in prison and throw away the key. Probably, very righteous when it comes to dealing with other law breakers. The present law requiring only 3 points endorsed and a small £60 fine is a joke. No Insurance gets 6 points & possibly hundreds of pounds fine. Driving while using a handheld phone should be punished the same as drink driving. And drink driving can mean custody! hrothgar

5:51pm Wed 18 Apr 12

termau69 says...

Franks Tank wrote:
There is a cycling blog. Unfortunately it is regularly hijacked by a motor bike rider with a stack of 78s.
Apologies someone removed my comment because i accused you of derogatory remarks towards The Chewton Bunny people the truth hurts sometimes
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: There is a cycling blog. Unfortunately it is regularly hijacked by a motor bike rider with a stack of 78s.[/p][/quote]Apologies someone removed my comment because i accused you of derogatory remarks towards The Chewton Bunny people the truth hurts sometimes termau69

5:52pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Veryhappyincomer says...

Dad! Dad! Look Dad! My photo's on the front page of the Echo!
Dad! Dad! Look Dad! My photo's on the front page of the Echo! Veryhappyincomer

5:57pm Wed 18 Apr 12

l'anglais says...

Reader Echo wrote:
Here is my overnight solution and cure to the problem, if you are caught red handed on camera and it can be proved beyond doubt:
1) Your car will be crushed.
2) You will get a £10,000 fine.
3) You will get a three year ban.

Until the legal system takes a stance like the above nothing will change.
How about a good flogging thrown in good measure?
Maybe a bit too liberal for you?
[quote][p][bold]Reader Echo[/bold] wrote: Here is my overnight solution and cure to the problem, if you are caught red handed on camera and it can be proved beyond doubt: 1) Your car will be crushed. 2) You will get a £10,000 fine. 3) You will get a three year ban. Until the legal system takes a stance like the above nothing will change.[/p][/quote]How about a good flogging thrown in good measure? Maybe a bit too liberal for you? l'anglais

6:00pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Veryhappyincomer says...

The photo's are deceiving. I know that it is illegal to use a hand held mobile phone whilst the engine in running, but how many of these cars were actually moving at the time. If they were taken at Cemetery Junction then I would hazard a guess that three quarters of these vehicles were stationery when the photos were taken. Some may even have had the engines switched off, making their use legal. These photos are proof of precisely nothing.

A nice idea by the Echo, but ruined in my opinion by sloppy methodology and insufficient information provided in the story. Perhaps next time they should put someone next to the Wessex Way to take photos of drivers using mobiles. Then the results would have more validity.
The photo's are deceiving. I know that it is illegal to use a hand held mobile phone whilst the engine in running, but how many of these cars were actually moving at the time. If they were taken at Cemetery Junction then I would hazard a guess that three quarters of these vehicles were stationery when the photos were taken. Some may even have had the engines switched off, making their use legal. These photos are proof of precisely nothing. A nice idea by the Echo, but ruined in my opinion by sloppy methodology and insufficient information provided in the story. Perhaps next time they should put someone next to the Wessex Way to take photos of drivers using mobiles. Then the results would have more validity. Veryhappyincomer

6:06pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Veryhappyincomer says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
hammer wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous!
It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?
Walk down Lindsay Road in Branksome any morning and you see plenty. It gets scary when some are still using a mobile when they go onto Frizzell Roundabout. Sorry Mikey, cyclists are not all saints.
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: Did they only target car drivers. Did they get any photos of cyclists using their mobile phones which is potentially as dangerous![/p][/quote]It's not against the law - probably because it's not deemed to be dangerous. Have you any examples to back up your assertion? Or are you just making it up?[/p][/quote]Walk down Lindsay Road in Branksome any morning and you see plenty. It gets scary when some are still using a mobile when they go onto Frizzell Roundabout. Sorry Mikey, cyclists are not all saints. Veryhappyincomer

6:08pm Wed 18 Apr 12

termau69 says...

Veryhappyincomer wrote:
The photo's are deceiving. I know that it is illegal to use a hand held mobile phone whilst the engine in running, but how many of these cars were actually moving at the time. If they were taken at Cemetery Junction then I would hazard a guess that three quarters of these vehicles were stationery when the photos were taken. Some may even have had the engines switched off, making their use legal. These photos are proof of precisely nothing.

A nice idea by the Echo, but ruined in my opinion by sloppy methodology and insufficient information provided in the story. Perhaps next time they should put someone next to the Wessex Way to take photos of drivers using mobiles. Then the results would have more validity.
So they were all probably sat engines off making 999 calls i love it.They were breaking the law the Echo caught them end of story
[quote][p][bold]Veryhappyincomer[/bold] wrote: The photo's are deceiving. I know that it is illegal to use a hand held mobile phone whilst the engine in running, but how many of these cars were actually moving at the time. If they were taken at Cemetery Junction then I would hazard a guess that three quarters of these vehicles were stationery when the photos were taken. Some may even have had the engines switched off, making their use legal. These photos are proof of precisely nothing. A nice idea by the Echo, but ruined in my opinion by sloppy methodology and insufficient information provided in the story. Perhaps next time they should put someone next to the Wessex Way to take photos of drivers using mobiles. Then the results would have more validity.[/p][/quote]So they were all probably sat engines off making 999 calls i love it.They were breaking the law the Echo caught them end of story termau69

6:09pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Veryhappyincomer says...

The Liberal wrote:
I've only ever used a mobile at the wheel once, on a business trip when somebody in the back seat handed me a phone to take a call from the office. I immediately felt very distracted by it and finished the call quickly. After that I would never be tempted to use a phone at the wheel again.
Same here, although I wasn't distracted, more like all over the road. Thank God it was quiet. Never again!
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I've only ever used a mobile at the wheel once, on a business trip when somebody in the back seat handed me a phone to take a call from the office. I immediately felt very distracted by it and finished the call quickly. After that I would never be tempted to use a phone at the wheel again.[/p][/quote]Same here, although I wasn't distracted, more like all over the road. Thank God it was quiet. Never again! Veryhappyincomer

6:20pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Rally says...

Phixer wrote:
"Worse than drink-driving"


Says who? People using a mobile phone at least have their faculties about them. Drunk and drugged drivers won't even know what planet they are on.


Another detailed accurate Echo report to make a headline and sell papers - not about road safety.
Phixer, I look forward to reading your detailed report on how you know that using a mobile phone when driving is not worse than drink-driving.
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote: "Worse than drink-driving" Says who? People using a mobile phone at least have their faculties about them. Drunk and drugged drivers won't even know what planet they are on. Another detailed accurate Echo report to make a headline and sell papers - not about road safety.[/p][/quote]Phixer, I look forward to reading your detailed report on how you know that using a mobile phone when driving is not worse than drink-driving. Rally

6:24pm Wed 18 Apr 12

termau69 says...

Rally wrote:
Phixer wrote:
"Worse than drink-driving"


Says who? People using a mobile phone at least have their faculties about them. Drunk and drugged drivers won't even know what planet they are on.


Another detailed accurate Echo report to make a headline and sell papers - not about road safety.
Phixer, I look forward to reading your detailed report on how you know that using a mobile phone when driving is not worse than drink-driving.
Me too some very strange evaluations of a straight forward report by the Echo for once
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote: "Worse than drink-driving" Says who? People using a mobile phone at least have their faculties about them. Drunk and drugged drivers won't even know what planet they are on. Another detailed accurate Echo report to make a headline and sell papers - not about road safety.[/p][/quote]Phixer, I look forward to reading your detailed report on how you know that using a mobile phone when driving is not worse than drink-driving.[/p][/quote]Me too some very strange evaluations of a straight forward report by the Echo for once termau69

6:26pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Reader Echo says...

l'anglais wrote:
Reader Echo wrote:
Here is my overnight solution and cure to the problem, if you are caught red handed on camera and it can be proved beyond doubt:
1) Your car will be crushed.
2) You will get a £10,000 fine.
3) You will get a three year ban.

Until the legal system takes a stance like the above nothing will change.
How about a good flogging thrown in good measure?
Maybe a bit too liberal for you?
Well L'anglais, I think a good flogging would be fine in addition the other punishments.
However in this soft liberal society I don't think it would be allowed.
[quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Reader Echo[/bold] wrote: Here is my overnight solution and cure to the problem, if you are caught red handed on camera and it can be proved beyond doubt: 1) Your car will be crushed. 2) You will get a £10,000 fine. 3) You will get a three year ban. Until the legal system takes a stance like the above nothing will change.[/p][/quote]How about a good flogging thrown in good measure? Maybe a bit too liberal for you?[/p][/quote]Well L'anglais, I think a good flogging would be fine in addition the other punishments. However in this soft liberal society I don't think it would be allowed. Reader Echo

6:47pm Wed 18 Apr 12

alasdair1967 says...

right i use my mobile phone whilst driving however i have a fully fitted hands free kit in my van ,when the phone rings i aknowledge the call by pushing a button (the same as changing a radio channel on your car stereo) i then have the conversation with whoever and push a button to end the call when im talking to the caller it is just the same as talking to a passenger in my vehicle but the difference for me is im fully hands free and i dont have the phone to my ear or in my hand if it was illegal for me to use hands free kit why are they allowed to sell them and where do you stop ban conversation in vehicles stop you using your car stereo ?
right i use my mobile phone whilst driving however i have a fully fitted hands free kit in my van ,when the phone rings i aknowledge the call by pushing a button (the same as changing a radio channel on your car stereo) i then have the conversation with whoever and push a button to end the call when im talking to the caller it is just the same as talking to a passenger in my vehicle but the difference for me is im fully hands free and i dont have the phone to my ear or in my hand if it was illegal for me to use hands free kit why are they allowed to sell them and where do you stop ban conversation in vehicles stop you using your car stereo ? alasdair1967

6:48pm Wed 18 Apr 12

homerjsimpson1979 says...

Whats the betting that someone in this gallery sues the Echo for using their photo without consent?
Whats the betting that someone in this gallery sues the Echo for using their photo without consent? homerjsimpson1979

6:54pm Wed 18 Apr 12

The Liberal says...

Yawwwn! wrote:
The Daily Echo is implying these people are guilty, but how do they know the drivers were not calling 999 as an emergency call? That is allowed whilst you are driving. If anyone was making an emergency call...you could probably sue The Daily Echo.
According to the advice on the Government website, you should only do so if it's unsafe or impractical to stop – not likely the case for those photographed by the Echo.
 
And to respond to another comment on here, the official advice also states that a driver should only use a handheld phone while safely PARKED (not just stopped in traffic).
[quote][p][bold]Yawwwn![/bold] wrote: The Daily Echo is implying these people are guilty, but how do they know the drivers were not calling 999 as an emergency call? That is allowed whilst you are driving. If anyone was making an emergency call...you could probably sue The Daily Echo.[/p][/quote]According to the advice on the Government website, you should only do so if it's unsafe or impractical to stop – not likely the case for those photographed by the Echo.   And to respond to another comment on here, the official advice also states that a driver should only use a handheld phone while safely PARKED (not just stopped in traffic). The Liberal

6:54pm Wed 18 Apr 12

paul k says...

Hardly journalisum though is it? Very poor and not why people buy the echo. Pictures inconclusive waste of time if you ask me. Must of been a "no news day"
Hardly journalisum though is it? Very poor and not why people buy the echo. Pictures inconclusive waste of time if you ask me. Must of been a "no news day" paul k

7:01pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Bmthdad says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
right i use my mobile phone whilst driving however i have a fully fitted hands free kit in my van ,when the phone rings i aknowledge the call by pushing a button (the same as changing a radio channel on your car stereo) i then have the conversation with whoever and push a button to end the call when im talking to the caller it is just the same as talking to a passenger in my vehicle but the difference for me is im fully hands free and i dont have the phone to my ear or in my hand if it was illegal for me to use hands free kit why are they allowed to sell them and where do you stop ban conversation in vehicles stop you using your car stereo ?
It's not illegal to use a hands free kit.
Where did you get that idea?
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: right i use my mobile phone whilst driving however i have a fully fitted hands free kit in my van ,when the phone rings i aknowledge the call by pushing a button (the same as changing a radio channel on your car stereo) i then have the conversation with whoever and push a button to end the call when im talking to the caller it is just the same as talking to a passenger in my vehicle but the difference for me is im fully hands free and i dont have the phone to my ear or in my hand if it was illegal for me to use hands free kit why are they allowed to sell them and where do you stop ban conversation in vehicles stop you using your car stereo ?[/p][/quote]It's not illegal to use a hands free kit. Where did you get that idea? Bmthdad

7:10pm Wed 18 Apr 12

alasdair1967 says...

Bmthdad wrote:
alasdair1967 wrote:
right i use my mobile phone whilst driving however i have a fully fitted hands free kit in my van ,when the phone rings i aknowledge the call by pushing a button (the same as changing a radio channel on your car stereo) i then have the conversation with whoever and push a button to end the call when im talking to the caller it is just the same as talking to a passenger in my vehicle but the difference for me is im fully hands free and i dont have the phone to my ear or in my hand if it was illegal for me to use hands free kit why are they allowed to sell them and where do you stop ban conversation in vehicles stop you using your car stereo ?
It's not illegal to use a hands free kit.
Where did you get that idea?
i did say "IF" it was illegal
[quote][p][bold]Bmthdad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: right i use my mobile phone whilst driving however i have a fully fitted hands free kit in my van ,when the phone rings i aknowledge the call by pushing a button (the same as changing a radio channel on your car stereo) i then have the conversation with whoever and push a button to end the call when im talking to the caller it is just the same as talking to a passenger in my vehicle but the difference for me is im fully hands free and i dont have the phone to my ear or in my hand if it was illegal for me to use hands free kit why are they allowed to sell them and where do you stop ban conversation in vehicles stop you using your car stereo ?[/p][/quote]It's not illegal to use a hands free kit. Where did you get that idea?[/p][/quote]i did say "IF" it was illegal alasdair1967

7:16pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Reader Echo says...

From the AA website:
'a driver seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands free phone can be prosecuted for that offence. The penalties are the same as for using a hand held phone.'

In other words use at your own risk and take the consequences if you kill somebody.
From the AA website: 'a driver seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands free phone can be prosecuted for that offence. The penalties are the same as for using a hand held phone.' In other words use at your own risk and take the consequences if you kill somebody. Reader Echo

7:21pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Bmthdad says...

Reader Echo wrote:
From the AA website:
'a driver seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands free phone can be prosecuted for that offence. The penalties are the same as for using a hand held phone.'

In other words use at your own risk and take the consequences if you kill somebody.
But it's not ILLEGAL to use a hands free. There has always been an offence of "not in proper control" or "undue care and attention" or similar, that would apply to using make-up or eating or drinking or fiddling with a satnav or radio etc etc
However, it IS illegal to use hand held.
[quote][p][bold]Reader Echo[/bold] wrote: From the AA website: 'a driver seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands free phone can be prosecuted for that offence. The penalties are the same as for using a hand held phone.' In other words use at your own risk and take the consequences if you kill somebody.[/p][/quote]But it's not ILLEGAL to use a hands free. There has always been an offence of "not in proper control" or "undue care and attention" or similar, that would apply to using make-up or eating or drinking or fiddling with a satnav or radio etc etc However, it IS illegal to use hand held. Bmthdad

7:22pm Wed 18 Apr 12

alasdair1967 says...

Reader Echo wrote:
From the AA website:
'a driver seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands free phone can be prosecuted for that offence. The penalties are the same as for using a hand held phone.'

In other words use at your own risk and take the consequences if you kill somebody.
so what causes the most distraction answering a call or talking to a passenger i will tell you which talking to a passenger its human nature to turn and face the person whom you are talking too thus losing full vision of the road ahead ,we can argue until we are blue in the face too me hands free is no more dangerous than using you r car stereo and yes someone somewhere im sure is trying to ban that !!!
[quote][p][bold]Reader Echo[/bold] wrote: From the AA website: 'a driver seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands free phone can be prosecuted for that offence. The penalties are the same as for using a hand held phone.' In other words use at your own risk and take the consequences if you kill somebody.[/p][/quote]so what causes the most distraction answering a call or talking to a passenger i will tell you which talking to a passenger its human nature to turn and face the person whom you are talking too thus losing full vision of the road ahead ,we can argue until we are blue in the face too me hands free is no more dangerous than using you r car stereo and yes someone somewhere im sure is trying to ban that !!! alasdair1967

7:55pm Wed 18 Apr 12

speedy231278 says...

How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?
How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights? speedy231278

7:59pm Wed 18 Apr 12

termau69 says...

speedy231278 wrote:
How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?
Go to cycling blog
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?[/p][/quote]Go to cycling blog termau69

8:09pm Wed 18 Apr 12

ragj195 says...

homerjsimpson1979 wrote:
Whats the betting that someone in this gallery sues the Echo for using their photo without consent?
Pretty sure that they're allowed to with police consent. No different to the wanted board on Crimewatch.
[quote][p][bold]homerjsimpson1979[/bold] wrote: Whats the betting that someone in this gallery sues the Echo for using their photo without consent?[/p][/quote]Pretty sure that they're allowed to with police consent. No different to the wanted board on Crimewatch. ragj195

9:10pm Wed 18 Apr 12

davecook says...

No chance of me being caught using a mobile phone. I don't own one, and hate the idea of walking along or driving along just listening to someone's monotonous drivel beamed into my life. I don't own a satnav either, I can memorise a map and drive anywhere. Most people could do the same with a little practice and concentration on the road.
No chance of me being caught using a mobile phone. I don't own one, and hate the idea of walking along or driving along just listening to someone's monotonous drivel beamed into my life. I don't own a satnav either, I can memorise a map and drive anywhere. Most people could do the same with a little practice and concentration on the road. davecook

9:44pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Bournefre says...

benjamin wrote:
I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?
I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.
[quote][p][bold]benjamin[/bold] wrote: I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?[/p][/quote]I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable. Bournefre

10:02pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Franks Tank says...

termau69 wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
There is a cycling blog. Unfortunately it is regularly hijacked by a motor bike rider with a stack of 78s.
Apologies someone removed my comment because i accused you of derogatory remarks towards The Chewton Bunny people the truth hurts sometimes
I wasn't aware that the truth hurt “The Chewton Bunny people”.
[quote][p][bold]termau69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: There is a cycling blog. Unfortunately it is regularly hijacked by a motor bike rider with a stack of 78s.[/p][/quote]Apologies someone removed my comment because i accused you of derogatory remarks towards The Chewton Bunny people the truth hurts sometimes[/p][/quote]I wasn't aware that the truth hurt “The Chewton Bunny people”. Franks Tank

5:43am Thu 19 Apr 12

rudestickers says...

Bournefre wrote:
benjamin wrote:
I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?
I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.
In the 16+ years I've had a mobile, I've never known or thought it was perfectly acceptable to use it when driving.
I also think the headline "worse than drink-driving" is a pretty dumb headline.
[quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benjamin[/bold] wrote: I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?[/p][/quote]I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.[/p][/quote]In the 16+ years I've had a mobile, I've never known or thought it was perfectly acceptable to use it when driving. I also think the headline "worse than drink-driving" is a pretty dumb headline. rudestickers

7:01am Thu 19 Apr 12

FNS-man says...

rudestickers wrote:
Bournefre wrote:
benjamin wrote: I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?
I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.
In the 16+ years I've had a mobile, I've never known or thought it was perfectly acceptable to use it when driving. I also think the headline "worse than drink-driving" is a pretty dumb headline.
Not if you actually read the article.
[quote][p][bold]rudestickers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benjamin[/bold] wrote: I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?[/p][/quote]I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.[/p][/quote]In the 16+ years I've had a mobile, I've never known or thought it was perfectly acceptable to use it when driving. I also think the headline "worse than drink-driving" is a pretty dumb headline.[/p][/quote]Not if you actually read the article. FNS-man

7:19am Thu 19 Apr 12

poolebabe says...

rudestickers wrote:
Bournefre wrote:
benjamin wrote:
I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?
I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.
In the 16+ years I've had a mobile, I've never known or thought it was perfectly acceptable to use it when driving.
I also think the headline "worse than drink-driving" is a pretty dumb headline.
I think the headline is supposed to be thought provoking. How many people caught using a mobile phone whilst driving, wouldn't dream of drink driving? I think that's where the comparison is used, but it may be a mistake to do so, unless the penalties are the same.

There are a some people who doubt that using a mobile phone whilst driving is as dangerous, simply because the fines aren't the same. You only have to look at some of the comments to see the attitude, with some people condoning the photographs by saying there is no proof that the cars were running at the time.

Journalism is often sensationalist, but would the echo seriously take photo's of the public and plaster them over the paper if it those people weren't doing anything wrong? It's the Echo, not the Sun lol.
[quote][p][bold]rudestickers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benjamin[/bold] wrote: I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?[/p][/quote]I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.[/p][/quote]In the 16+ years I've had a mobile, I've never known or thought it was perfectly acceptable to use it when driving. I also think the headline "worse than drink-driving" is a pretty dumb headline.[/p][/quote]I think the headline is supposed to be thought provoking. How many people caught using a mobile phone whilst driving, wouldn't dream of drink driving? I think that's where the comparison is used, but it may be a mistake to do so, unless the penalties are the same. There are a some people who doubt that using a mobile phone whilst driving is as dangerous, simply because the fines aren't the same. You only have to look at some of the comments to see the attitude, with some people condoning the photographs by saying there is no proof that the cars were running at the time. Journalism is often sensationalist, but would the echo seriously take photo's of the public and plaster them over the paper if it those people weren't doing anything wrong? It's the Echo, not the Sun lol. poolebabe

8:47am Thu 19 Apr 12

hammer says...

speedy231278 wrote:
How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?
Probably more than were caught using their mobile phones!
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?[/p][/quote]Probably more than were caught using their mobile phones! hammer

8:53am Thu 19 Apr 12

termau69 says...

hammer wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?
Probably more than were caught using their mobile phones!
Hammer dear behave or we will have another cyclist war on our hands and i have been banned once already
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?[/p][/quote]Probably more than were caught using their mobile phones![/p][/quote]Hammer dear behave or we will have another cyclist war on our hands and i have been banned once already termau69

10:23am Thu 19 Apr 12

BarrHumbug says...

FNS-man wrote:
rudestickers wrote:
Bournefre wrote:
benjamin wrote: I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?
I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.
In the 16+ years I've had a mobile, I've never known or thought it was perfectly acceptable to use it when driving. I also think the headline "worse than drink-driving" is a pretty dumb headline.
Not if you actually read the article.
No but if you read the article it doesn't mention the fact that using a mobile phone has been proved to be ONLY more dangerous than drink driving when you are actually texting, reading/writing emails or updating your social network. Just talking on the phone has not been found to be more dangerous, obviously whilst trying to negotiate changing gear, corners, roundabouts whilst holding a phone to your ear is still dangerous as you don't have full control of your vehicle but I believe the law was introduced mainly due to the growing popularity of texting, otherwise handsfree kits would be illegal too? If the paper wanted to write a story that was strictly adhering to their headline then it would read "We caught 2 people texting whilst stationary at the traffic lights, had they been moving at the time it would have been more dangerous than drink driving!".
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rudestickers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benjamin[/bold] wrote: I wonder if all those people who clicked the 'no never' box told the truth?[/p][/quote]I doubt it - using the phone while driving used to be perfectly acceptable.[/p][/quote]In the 16+ years I've had a mobile, I've never known or thought it was perfectly acceptable to use it when driving. I also think the headline "worse than drink-driving" is a pretty dumb headline.[/p][/quote]Not if you actually read the article.[/p][/quote]No but if you read the article it doesn't mention the fact that using a mobile phone has been proved to be ONLY more dangerous than drink driving when you are actually texting, reading/writing emails or updating your social network. Just talking on the phone has not been found to be more dangerous, obviously whilst trying to negotiate changing gear, corners, roundabouts whilst holding a phone to your ear is still dangerous as you don't have full control of your vehicle but I believe the law was introduced mainly due to the growing popularity of texting, otherwise handsfree kits would be illegal too? If the paper wanted to write a story that was strictly adhering to their headline then it would read "We caught 2 people texting whilst stationary at the traffic lights, had they been moving at the time it would have been more dangerous than drink driving!". BarrHumbug

12:19pm Thu 19 Apr 12

hammer says...

termau69 wrote:
hammer wrote:
speedy231278 wrote: How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?
Probably more than were caught using their mobile phones!
Hammer dear behave or we will have another cyclist war on our hands and i have been banned once already
I know I have been banned as well - I think I have cycling tourettes - I just can't help myself LOL
[quote][p][bold]termau69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: How many cyclists did they photograph ignoring the red lights?[/p][/quote]Probably more than were caught using their mobile phones![/p][/quote]Hammer dear behave or we will have another cyclist war on our hands and i have been banned once already[/p][/quote]I know I have been banned as well - I think I have cycling tourettes - I just can't help myself LOL hammer

8:44pm Thu 19 Apr 12

mrhectic says...

can someone tell me what's dangerous about being stationary at a set of traffic lights and using your phone?
can someone tell me what's dangerous about being stationary at a set of traffic lights and using your phone? mrhectic

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree