- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Texting while driving (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 licence by Paul Oka:Flickr)Police chiefs deny post-crash phone seizure plan
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) says that press reports at the weekend claiming that officers had been instructed to seize mobile phones at all road traffic collisions are incorrect.
It is illegal to use a handheld mobile phone at the wheel, but the law is widely ignored, despite calls from road safety organisations for police to step up enforcement.
Gloucestershire Chief Constable Suzette Davenport, who is responsible for roads policing at ACPO, was widely reported at the weekend to have told officers to take possession of mobile phones after a crash.
But in a statement published on the ACPO website, she said: “At no point have I issued guidance to officers to seize mobile phones from drivers at the site of every road traffic collision.
“It is fair to say that we as a service are looking at ways of making officers and drivers more aware of the difference between the offences of driving while not in proper control of the vehicle - which is a distraction offence - and driving while using a mobile phone.
“Part of this process involves making sure officers know the best means of using information within a driver’s mobile phone when building evidence for a successful prosecution, such as finding from call or text logs if the phone was in use at the time of an incident.
Currently, mobile phones are seized in incidents where someone has been killed or injured, and Chief Constable Davenport confirmed that would not change.
“It has been standard practice to seize mobile phones from drivers at the scenes of very serious collisions for some time as part of the information and evidence gathering process, but it is not now, nor will it be, standard practice to seize phones from drivers after every collision,” she said.
“Drivers must continue to be aware not only of the risks posed by being distracted by mobile phones while in control of a car, but the serious penalties which they will face if they are caught. We are unequivocal in our determination to keep all road users safe.”
Earlier this month, Secretary of State for Transport Patrick McLoughlin said that the government was seriously considering a suggestion from Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe to double the number of penalty points for using a hands-free mobile phone while driving from three to six.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- imajez 6 hours 12 min ago
Nothing new about zebra [or light controlled] crossing on roundabouts. Sheffield has had them for decades, possibly since the 1970s.
- David9694 7 hours 42 min ago
Herefordshire man fined after throwing parking ticket...
- OnYerBike 9 hours 3 min ago
I'm sure that sort of thing will come sooner or later. But presumably a key ingredient (and why you'd turn to a big brand like Fizik) is knowing...
- muhasib 9 hours 8 min ago
"the cost to rebuild the M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange is £317 million. The project is expected to be completed in 2025. "
- mark1a 9 hours 32 min ago
I think they did, from memory back in the 70s/80s... haven't seen one for years though, our current milkman uses a standard van, albeit hybrid.
- kingleo 10 hours 46 min ago
I believe that straight forks that are used on carbon frames are more dangerous than the old steel forks because they are more rigid, the old steel...
- S.E. 11 hours 18 min ago
Yes, sleep apnea produces more CO... I'm not aware of any doping effect but what do I know....
- Gd29 13 hours 26 min ago
That's true enough. But doesn't address my point that the chainset you get as a replacement will not physically fit chainrings from the chain set...
- brooksby 13 hours 57 min ago
In all fairness, it almost certainly NEVER happened…
Add new comment
14 comments
Mobiles lower reaction time on average, anything that does that should be avoided/banned.
I always find it odd that people put other mundane things above their safety.
But as a law it's not really easy to enforce , we need to somehow change peoples attitudes.
Which, combined with the fact that road deaths haven't gone up significantly over the last ten or so years makes be think that 2/day is an over-estimate for the UK. Still, I suspect that the answer is a non-trivial number of deaths.
Mobile related KSI could be masking a contemporaneous decline in other KSI causes?
I suspect that the action the police will be taking will be "none", and this has all been a massive red herring.
"Cycling helmets came about because" the manufacturers found that they could sell 1/2 a motorcycle helmet ( the inner) for 2/3rds the price, and then the standards were written to pass the helmets already being made/sold. Don't mistake a commercial drive for want/need or a scientific proof of effectivness.
I absolutely agree with you... I was trying to diplomatically describe the difference between the two scenarios and asking if the same applied here.
Utilising data from the US, do we know how many teenagers die in crashes on a daily basis.
If we know the total number we can cross reference how many are from mobile phone use and get a loose idea of the scale of the problem.
I struggle to believe 50% of fatal crashes are caused by mobiles.
"Stable door" approach - not ideal. People just don't see it as dangerous or unacceptable, and that needs to change to STOP people from using phones whilst driving - not prosecuting them after a resulting accident!
I saw a driver texting on Sunday. I knocked on her window (she was suitably surprised and of course tried to hide her phone). I asked her to put her phone down. She said "Yes, of course, sorry". I also told her she was stopped in the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists, to which she replied "Am I? I didn't realise".
It made a really nice change from "f*** off - mind your own business"!
Surely this should be debated by Parliament?
The figure cited for the US is 11 deaths of teenagers alone every day from driving whilst texting. If the rate per head of population were the same in the UK, that would be 2/day.
I can believe that the rate in the US is worse than the UK, but I suspect that the number in the UK is still non-trivial, particularly once expanded to non-teenagers, and people talking rather than texting on their phone. And of course, these figures completely ignore non-fatal injuries.
For years and years we've been ill-served by the libertarian logic that only the error should be punished, not the outcome, as nine times out of 10 a lack of attention has no consequence beyond a scuffed tyre.
And yet here we are saying that it's the outcome, which is pretty much a case of luck, that decides whether somethng is worth investigating properly or not. It's not like this a hugely onerous piece of investigation.
Given that approximately 5 people are killed on roads everyday in the UK, then that suggests mobiles would account for nearly half.
Given the numbers I see everyday using the phone then I fimly believe mobiles should be seized following a collision for investigation.
It's an excellent question. All I've ever heard is that using a mobile while driving is like driving under the influence of alcohol, with hands-free only offering some mitigation. But as to numbers of lives lost/impaired, I'd like to see those numbers too (not because I disbelieve so much as want to understand the impact).
I'm not sure... how important is this?
i.e. is this a car seatbelt or cycling helmet matter?
Seatbelts were brought in because in serious RTA's, there was a high percentage of serious injuries caused by drivers/passengers going through windscreens; being crushed against the steering wheel or by other passengers. It was an answer to a recognised need (to stop a lot of people dying).
Cycling helmets came about because it was recognised that cycling posed a potential risk of head injury... helmets were designed to mitigate against this. It was a solution to a perceived risk (to stop a few people dying needlessly).
So, with mobiles, we know that they reduce the attention of drivers and that in turn makes them more likely to crash...
What I am asking is how does that equate to accident numbers/severity?
If that's not known currently, then it needs to become so and then adequate attention can be given to the matter.
So, what, exactly, ARE they going to do? Besides expelling hot air, that is?
If they would say something along the line of "mobiles will be checked for use at every road traffic incident as standard practice", at least that's something.
"Never mistake motion for action" - Ernest Hemingway