How much is a life worth

Momentary distraction vs impaired everything? Doesn't equate IMO. I'm not advocating using a mobile whilst driving I'm just pointing out that a person not drunk is capable of risk assessment and normal judgement whereas a drunk person loses inhibitions, judgement, co-ordination and the ability to rationalise correctly.

What winds me up is when they have a camera in the passenger footwell and drive along the public road talking to the camera. Surely they could be had for driving without due care and attention, police could tie how long they are not looking at the road

Both are potentially deadly. How many drunk drivers crash into another drunk driver? If every dummy was using attention-diverting kit it would not be long before they would be crashing with others doing the same (as well as more innocent parties). One, not paying attention, is one too many.

We were hit in the rear, 21 years ago, by someone who was almost certainly using a mobile phone. 40mph speed limit on a straight road and they claimed they had not seen our vehicle, waiting to turn right, until about 20 yards away.

I am still suffering the consequences - a shoulder that ‘aches’ and my neck, that aches after less than a couple hours driving.

Too many killed by lorries hitting vehicles queuing in traffic jams where drivers are doing ‘other activities’. Any sensible person capable of risk assessment would quickly come to the conclusion that it is not safe. Clearly there are a lot, out there, that are incapable of even making that risk assessment.

Edited By not done it yet on 20/11/2021 09:19:29

All use while driving of any types of phone/communication should be banned,and placed out of reach of the driver, if caught the phone should be confiscated and destroyed, I suspect that any type of touch screen can lead to accidents, there are too many distractions in the modern car, and with the increase in so called smart motorways with no hard shoulder any distraction could all so easily be fatal.

From day 1, Pandora's box was opened for drivers using mobile phones - "It's against the law to use a mobile phone whilst driving from January first - - - - but we're giving motorists a months grace to get used to it !" since then, so many legal loopholes have been created by "What if" and "Ahh but" scenarios .

Want to stop it? Speaking purely as a heartless idiot, at the roadside the Police should be able to :-

1 Break the Sim card into quarters.

2 Stamp on the phone

3 Have the vehicle impounded AND crushed.

Too harsh? Don't use a mobile phone or ANY hand held device while driving. Softly softly fines DON'T WORK and never will.

Regards Ian.

I have a policy that my mobile is in my pocket while I am in the car if it did ring which it very rarely does(Nobody want to talk to me) If I was to try and get it out they would have rung off to me no phone call is that important and if it was they would ring back or wait until I can pull over.

I would rather spend money on hobbies than fines

I'd go much farther .... back to basics in fact. For anything other than the basic set of driving instruments (speedo, gas-gauge etc) whether mounted to the car or not, the default should be that they are illegal unless specifically approved.

Right now, the default is the reverse .... anything goes and the onus is on the authorities to enact laws to ban - which takes time and cost money. The forces of rabid capitalism are more than happy to take advantage.

Iran has some good solid laws you guys might support

My fav is mass murderers being given a 200 dollar wire instead of 100k a year accommodation

In a parallel situation police at one time used to confiscate the film in a camera, often exposing it to the light, from photographers using a camera where the police thought they shouldn't (actually not illegal in most places in the UK even when the subject of a photo complained)

Prosecutions failed through lack of evidence.

Nowadays I suspect the phone would need to be taken as evidence and if a successful prosecution took place it would need to be explicitly punishable by confiscation amongst other penalties before the phone SIM etc could be destroyed - otherwise it would almost certainly need to be returned.

The police in this country do not punish - that is left to the courts to do after an offence has been proved and the defendant found guilty.

Strabnge isn't it, that any contentious legal matter so often brings knee-jerk reactions that totally ignore the entire basis of proper evidence and justice!

Unlike in many countries including I think some European countries that also place burden of proof on the defence rather than prosecution, even the Crown Prosecution Service has no power to ask for particular penalties.

It is for the prosection to furnish sufficient evidence to prove guilt; and in criminal cases it for the magistrates or judge alone to set the penalty appropriate to the case, and within the maxima specified for the offence.

Destroying property destroys evidence, risking making a proper trial of guilt or innocence impossible; so any order for destruction is and must remain a part of sentencing.

I am not saying it always gets it right. We have seen some appalling miscarriages of justice in this country but fortunately they are very rare. We also have too many special-case laws, sometimes named after individuals, brought in as quick reactions to satisfy public vengeance, rather than as properly-analysed refining of existing laws. Quite simply no system ever invented and run by human beings ever manages to be perfect - but taking merely vindictive action such as immediately destroying property at the scene is no better than vigilantism.

.

Nevertheless the motor industry itself does need taking very seriously to task. It should not be allowed to render simple repairs to keep a vehicle legal -such as replacing a failed lamp - impossible for the motorist or breakdown-assistance at the roadside on a dark Winter night. It should not be allowed to install so-called "infotainment" gadgetry so complicated that it becomes even more distracting and dangerous for drivers who ought not be using it while the car in is motion anyway. I gather some even includes television visible by the driver - if so, what idiot was responsible for that? In any case, it is already illegal to use a TV in a vehicle where it is visible to the driver.

'

As for my portable 'phone... it is OFF when and where required by law or otherwise requested; in any cultural event or something like a funeral (the only church services I attend), and voluntarily in any social situation even as informal as a few relatives or friends together anywhere. If I need it, my "sat-nag " is a separate instrument taken only on the specific journey - so not very often.

Just spotted this article about an award-winning dashboard. Not entirely convinced...

Rob

Links to https://interestingengineering.com/shy-car-dashboard-only-appears-when-needed

It should not be allowed to render simple repairs to keep a vehicle legal -such as replacing a failed lamp - impossible for the motorist or breakdown-assistance at the roadside on a dark Winter night.

Nigel,

I do not understand what you are saying here. Given that incandescent bulbs can fail without warning, and that generally there is no warning to the driver, and therefore the driver may be unaware of the defect, then assuming spare lamps and a torch along woth suitable tools are carried, then why should the driver be legally prevented from changing it at the roadside?

Peter G. Shaw

.

I think you two are in agreement, Peter

MichaelG.

I agree re usng mobile phnes whilst driving - should be banned. If you want to make or receive a call, pull over and stop the car. Safest way.

Have thought so ever since about 25 years ago a director of the company I worked for was reputedly known to have driven around a roundabout phone in one hand, changing gear with the other and steering using her knee. Nightmare!

Here in Queensland, Australia the fine is now $1,000 ; that is serious money ! The law has only been active for a week and already they have caught over a thousand of people using secret cameras that were installed for this purpose.

The major problem with all of these touch screen controls and displays is that they require the user to look at them in order to 'touch' the appropriate part of the screen to fulfil a function. That of itself is a distraction, and often a lengthy one in terms of safety.

The modern trend of ignoring the value of the tactile sense is an extremely retrograde step.

In my car, with conventional knobs and switches, I don't have to divert my eyes from the driving task in order to operate any essential car function.

The radio and SatNav on the other hand has a touch screen and to use that I have to divert my attention to the centre console and look at where to place a finger in order to achieve any simple task. That is simply not appropriate, or good enough, for safe driving.

A different take on the "How much is a life worth" subject. Some 10 years ago a colleague and I were asked to look at the costs of buying defibrillators, the training to use and ongoing maintenance for my workplace. The site is big, some four square miles and, being a rural site, somewhat remote from medical assistance so it was thought to be a good idea.

I looked at the costs, the business was awash with money at the time so no problem there. Things got tricky when I looked at the statistics, the effectiveness of the equipment. I don't recall the figures but had this been an industrial process there was no way it would ever happen. Wished I had ignored that. The argument went right to the top and was passed by one vote.

We were made aware of how the voting went and the comment from the senior guy who proposed the idea was that those who voted against were likely to be those who would use a phone while driving!

Seven defibs were installed across the site and none have been used as of a couple of months ago other than being brought to the site of a medial emergency, just in case.

Road stats from the last couple of years are in, and these are only recorded incidents

Goodness knows how many minor injuries never made it to the books, x3? x5?

30,000 serious injuries times ??

Rock climbing is safer IMO

For me The Drug war moniker is appropriate "Just say no!"

Cyclist deaths soar on rural roads in England

**LINK**

Edited By Ady1 on 01/12/2021 09:24:22

I couldnlt find this years figures (apart from the BBC) and Gov's publication from end September this year is for the year before.
One could spend a fair time really analysing the meaning of the figures given and the context of Gov's definition of rural.
Here

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2020

Personal view that cyclists and motor vehicles shouldn't be on the same tarmac.
And as someone who regularly gets stuck behind slow moving cyclists for several miles because rural roads aren't conducive to safe overtakes and the cyclist knows his rights and hasn't the good manners of a farm tractor to pull over and let a car queue past.. well they should bring in a law that anyone dressed in Lycra on a bicycle on a Sunday may be shot with a bow and arrow.

pgk

That's the biggest problem, the government guys generate confrontation instead of co-operation

In Edinburgh they have instant-change traffic lights at some seriously busy junctions to discourage amber light jumping by cars but this leaves many cyclists waiting to turn with their a** hanging out in the middle of the road when the traffic flow changes

If I was King for a day my first law would be 5 to 10seconds minimum delay between one light going to red and anything else being allowed to change