1,000 drivers caught on mobile phones in a fortnight

Deja vue or what... Ron, don't allow yourself to be distracted by that vague collective, it's like trying to knit water. Good point on pedestrians though. Larry, separating the wheat from the chaff and much as it pains me to say it, I think you have a point with the visualisation of government ministers weighing up on the one hand thus far minimal (to them) officially attributed deaths, against the potential revenue to be made in soft target fines.

I still believe that driver- phone use legislation was a worthwhile opening salvo, it just needs a steroid injection before such offences attain the sort of 'cheeky acceptability' that drink-driving did in certain circles in the 60's.
I guess that the technology exists to aid detection, that would be a start.

It also helps to emphasise the general unacceptability of such anti-social behaviour; stigmatise the whole practice, highlight the disgust felt by most at seeing such blatant, selfish disregard for the safety of the rest of us.
I'll kick it off here by proposing that henceforth, all those known to use communication devices whilst driving should be known by the abbreviated derogatory term: 'mo pho criminals'. Actually they'd probably wear that like a medal, so swap 'criminals' for something more base - any offers?

How mant accidents caused by eating and smoking while driving? People have so many distractions, where would you draw the line?

The radio is a good example. Perhaps the problems also starts with manufacturers puting more technical gadgets into cars?

The same however could be said for pedestrians who walk around with MP3 players in and not looking where they are going, or reducing their senses and awareness, and to some extent cyclists doing the same, (who also use the road, and dont pay insurance or tax, but expect the same rights? just playing devils advocate here, as both a cyclist and car user. . . . the problem is bigger than just mobile phones and hands free kits.

Gareth don’t worry about how its policed, that’s for the police, I'm sure methods and technology would be found.
For the record, unless the police have physical evidence of actual holding of phone (photo), you can deny it and get away with the offence. The prosecution rate is so high, because people admit to it.

My problem is with the contradictions this whole subject brings.

Mobile conversation in the car is the problem, deal with the whole problem, not just a bit of it, With the only reason given, as far as I can see, is that it makes us feel comfortable doing something.

Wrong wrong wrong.

I do agree my figures are way below the true amount. I spend allot of time on the motorway's, it seems common practice.
Worst of all, if I may make an observation, at the scene of an accident nearly everyone reach's for their phone. I would imagine its a "I'm going to be late call".

I would be bold, scrap current money making legislation, replace "holding" with "using".
It would still catch current offenders holding, but would give the impetuses for more strident policing. As far as the technoplogy required to police, it would appear as if by magic, can you imagine the money to be made. Think speed camera's and how common they have become in such a short time!

Thats my last words on the subject.

Larry
I think the problem is that you can see someone holding a phone, you can't see someone using hands free. How would you enforce the law if using rather than holding a phone was the rule?
Do you stop every person driving you see talking, regardless of whether they are talking to a passenger or singing along to the radio/CD player?
As it stands, on the rare occasion the police see someone holding a phone, they have the opportunity to pull them over. I say rare, as on my 36 mile round journey to work every day, I see at least 1 or 2 people on the phone while driving, and I am concentrating on the road not trying to spot someone illegally using the phone.
Only last night I watched someone in the lane next to me, in a traffic jam, apparently texting and run in to the back of the car in front of them. We were travelling at about 4 or 5 MPH at the time.

Sounds like a conservative estimate of the problem to me

Oh forgot to add,

in 2010, there were 349 accidents of which 26 died. (Mark, Carole)

As a percentage of the occurrences, that’s 104000
Accidents = 0.336%
Of which Deaths = 0.025%

Lets get real. Mobile phones "Usage" in cars should be on the law books, not "Holding", but with statistics like the above against £6.5 mill, call me cynical if you want!

Hmmm what a good law, its such a deterrent............ Not.

1000 people times £60, that would be £60,000, times 26 (fortnights in a year), that’s £1.5 million a year, thank you very much.

If we were to introduce a law which did indeed BAN USING a mobile while driving, and an EFFECTIVE DETERENT, lets face it £60 its not much, how much would that £1.5 mill shrink by???????? too much for a cash strapped government to want to do, perhaps?

Lets see, 500 people a week, times 52 weeks in a year, times 4 countries in the UK, that would be 104,000 occurrences, £6.25 million, simple maths, doesn't take into account more peeps in england!

The report above states its illegal to use a phone while driving, no it isn't!

There's peeps on here who think we should keep this law, apparently its better to do something, even if it doesn't really work.

I cant understand that logic, surely its better to put time, energy and resources into something that does work.

Anyone else see the contradictions in the DFT statement, terms such as "may be", or " employers will not be liable" or my favourite reading between the lines, " employers even though you provide mobile phone's don’t ring them, pretty please because there’s nothing we can do."