- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Phone use while driving - image CC licenced via Lord Jim.jpgDoubled punishment for phone-using drivers 'insufficient' says brother of killed cyclist
Drivers who are caught using mobile phones behind the wheels of vehicles are set to face doubly harsh punishments under planned changes in government legislation.
The changes being ushered in by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling have been welcomed by the AA, but the brother of Hampshire cyclist Lee Martin who was killed last August by a van driver who had eight previous convictions for phone use, says he doesn't "really see that a fine is really going to stop everybody."
The planned change in punishment pegged to come into effect in the first half of 2017 would double the minimum fine to £200, as well as doubling the three points you would currently receive to six.
Darrell Martin, brother of cyclist Lee Martin who was killed by Christopher Gard who had been infront of a magistrate 6 weeks earlier on charges of phone use while driving, was a guest on Radio 4's Today programme. He explained that while he actively welcomes the changes, he doesn't think the new punishments will be enough to change the national attitude towards phone use behind the wheel.
>Read more: Driver charged 6 months after death of Hapshire cyclist Lee Martin
"I greet it with enthusiasm that they have begun the process but I don't really think it is enough what they have proposed," Mr Martin told Radio 4.
"I don't really see that a fine is really going to stop everybody because if you're absolutely loaded £200 is nothing, £1,000 is nothing if you're driving round in a fancy Aston Martin."
Mr Martin's brother Lee was killed while taking part in a time trial near Farnham when driver Gard collided with him at around 7.30pm. Lee was airlifted to John Radcliffe Hospital where he later died of his injuries.
>Read more: Nine-year jail sentence for texting driver who killed Lee Martin
The triviality of text messaging was a focus point during Mr Martin's Radio 4 interview. He highlighted the topic of conversation that Christopher Gard was engaged in at the time of the crash as an example of the ridiculous recklessness of texting while driving.
"Think about how inane this is, the text message that he was texting his mate was about how he was going to meet him to take his dog for a walk. That's what killed my brother; it's horrendous."
This change in legislation is being masterminded by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling. The legislation will cover anyone caught using a handheld device to place a phone call, text message, or use an app while driving.
Mr Grayling highlighted the changing world of technology and the need to keep up with it legislatively. He said:
“As technology develops, mobile phones are common place, but we need to take responsibility for our actions and as drink or drug driving has become socially unacceptable, so must using mobile phones at the wheel.
“It may seem harmless when you are replying to a text, answering a call or using an app, but the truth is your actions could kill and cause untold misery to others.
“We all have a part to play in ensuring our family and friends do not use their phones while driving. I will be announcing a tougher new penalty regime shortly.”
Meanwhile Edmund King, the president of motoring organisation the AA, said "One text and you're out... if we are to change the attitudes of young drivers maybe it has to be that harsh."
"Six points is a real statement when you look at sentencing, I think it is a really good start."
Latest Comments
- ktache 1 hour 12 min ago
Obviously can't be trusted, antisocial, ban motor vehicles...
- ktache 1 hour 17 min ago
But getting paid for it is the very definition of professional....
- ktache 1 hour 25 min ago
Never had a Shimano QR fail on me. They just work. And the top end ones look good too....
- Backladder 2 hours 11 min ago
If you're only looking at the guy in front of you then you're going to crash whatever brakes you have, you need to look beyond them to anticipate...
- jaysa 2 hours 37 min ago
As a woman, this works great for me! My chain broke once, and a kind guy stopped with a chain breaker and sorted it all out for me. We stopped at a...
- andystow 3 hours 28 min ago
Same. I also have gone through a bunch of their tyres, and only the extralight disappointed (torn sidewall) but the standards are fantastic....
- chrisonabike 5 hours 26 min ago
Indeed - but it's no more inconsistent than our current road design - very often UK high streets are "for shopping" and also a busy through route....
- mike the bike 6 hours 56 min ago
If you ask the world's leading economic commentators how many people have been rescued from abject poverty by capitalism the average answer would...
- The Larger Cyclist 7 hours 21 min ago
loads of parking
Add new comment
29 comments
If you bring in technology to stop passengers that is probably acceptable to the majority if ALL road users are banned from using mobile phones.
That includes cyclists and pedestrians crossing the road, whilst they're at it I would like to see the use of headphones whilst using the road made illegal also.
would be resisted by the motor industry as it would have a massive impact on car sales. people are not going to want to trade in their car for a new one which limits them in any way.
I don't see any government with the courage to insist retro fitting to all existing cars.
So how would this technology work ? Are we going to fit jamming equipment into every vehicle ?
Only if they also ban all in-car stereo/entertainment.
Thanks to the 'Speed Kills' mantra, roads policing is almost entirely automated - there are very few dedicated traffic officers who do anything but sit in camera vans. If it can't be detected by a camera or ANPR then you'll almost certainly get away with it, so it's hardly surprising that so many people use their phones at the wheel.
Why is it 'thanks to the speed kills mantra', rather than being thanks to limited resources?
And if the emphasis were so much on automatic detection of speeding, why is speeding (often at ludicrous levels, e.g. 60mph in 20mph zones) nearly universal, and why are speed-cameras so rare?
Actually, that clip in the news now of the policeman going mental at a (not coincidentally, black) driver, makes me even more inclined to think that more aggressive enforcement isn't the answer (because with cops like that around its likely to create new problems of its own), but that the only way forward is to do much more to keep motor vehicles away from more vulnerable modes of travel (pedestrians as well as cyclists)
The Nice terror attack or the Glasgow truck disaster emphasise to me that motor vehicles are potential lethal weapons and need to be more restricted in who can use them and where they can be used. We need a lot more bollards, basically.
The police should carry small mallets with them and be allowed to use said mallet to insert the phones of people caught using them in cars 'where the sun doesn't shine'. It would then be upto the idiot involved to pay for a private proctologist to 'retrieve' their property at great personal expense. That'd make them think twice
.
Given how little many dog owners care about the behaviour of their animals around other people trying to enjoy a quiet walk in a park, it isn't surprising this one couldn't care less about the safety of vulnerable road users around him.
Ban for 12 months and an education course!
And dont most cars have handsfree or can have it so apart from answering the phone why would you need to touch it.
I see a lot of people on my commutes on phones they think because they are in traffic or at the lights that its acceptable.
Car manufacturers could help with this problem by introducing a signal scrambler which would inhibit the use of a mobile phone inside the car. With technology advancing like it is, I am sure it would be possible. There is a market here to be explored. IMO
so, how would the scrambler know if you were a driver or a passenger? My mum was a hardline "devices are bad for children" until she had 4 grandchildren in the back. Now they're compulsory!
Why would it matter if you were a passenger? All of us can manage to suit through flights, and most of us can manage to sit through plays, films and concerts, without ever texting or phoning. Why should a car journey be so different?
[/quote]
Why would it matter if you were a passenger? All of us can manage to suit through flights, and most of us can manage to sit through plays, films and concerts, without ever texting or phoning. Why should a car journey be so different?
[/quote]
Would you advocate a designated driver not taking their friends home after they have had a night out?
The passengers using a mobile phone will not be breaking the law. Therefore it would be very hard to justify stopping them.
Seriously?! Surely the point of not using a mobile phone in a play, film or concert is that it distracts you and everyone else from the entertainment you've paid to see. Can you honestly not conceive of a situation where it would be useful / essential for a passenger in a vehicle to be able to use a mobile?
One issue that seems to be being ignored in all this talk of increased bans for phone use at the wheel, is that (as far as I'm aware) research points to hands-free phone use being almost as distracting to a driver as handheld - it's the fact your attention is on something else, rather than the physical act of holding a phone, that is the distraction. That behaviour is positively encouraged by modern car manufacturers with bluetooth connections to phones allowing you to make calls, and dictate text messages. Surely that makes them complicit in increasing risk on the roads, even if it is currently legal.
"Can you honestly not conceive of a situation where it would be useful / essential for a passenger in a vehicle to be able to use a mobile?"
Useful? yes. Essential? No. Soluttion - stop the car.
"Surely the point of not using a mobile phone in a play, film or concert is that it distracts you and everyone else from the entertainment you've paid to see."
And the point of not using a mobile phone in a car is to avoid killing people. Seems too matter less apaprently.
Every week I'm an essential in car phone user- as a Coastguard Rescue Officer (like many other thousands around the country) we use personal cars to attend scene/ the unit where our vehilce is kept- I'm often in the passenger seat with 2 mobiles and a radio co-ordinating the team to save countless lives. I can't just go off grid.
Put mobile use on a par with drink driving, I thought I heard recently that you're more likely to be hit by a phone user than a drink driver these days?
Just to be completely clear I wasn't referring to drivers using mobiles. I meant (I thought obviously) passengers using mobiles, which would also be prevented if blocking technology was built into cars (which is why it'll never happen)
I know you meant passengers. My view, which sadly I can't persuade my MP to share, is that since drivers can't be persuaded to behave properly, technology should be used to solve the problem, and passenger usage be seen as 'collateral damage'. It would only be an interim fix until either driverless cars, or a realization that private cars are an indulgence too far, solve the problem for good.
We lived for many years without mobiles. I struggle to believe that disaster would really befall us if car passengers couldn't use them.
Have you been to a cinema lately? Many people really can't.
Or self-driving cars...
The brother has a point: time for the Day Fine maybe, like in Finland and elsewhere, with the fine being a proportion of your income instead of a fixed rate.
But of course the wider issues are 1. lack of police to enforce it, 2. sentencing leniency regarding manslaughter with a vehicle, 3. sentencing leniency regarding driving bans.
It means nothing as long as motorists can claim 'hardship' to avoid the penalties
The higher increases mean nothing. High profile traffic policing looking for this and other dangerous, unlicensed, uninsured motorists is what we actually need. That and the judiciary need to actually do something when shown the guilty party, rather than let them off to do it again.
So Home Secretary, more traffic police and kick some sense into the judiciary and law makers, we're waiting.........
This is just a cynical ploy by the government to look as if they are doing something about mobile driving without actually doing anything. The increased penalties won't deter anyone, and the government can pretend they've taken action, but people will still die. Still, they won't have lost the Top Gear vote, so that's all right.
Write to your MP now and demand that the penalties for mobile use while driving is the same as for drink driving.
http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-your-mp/
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/
Penalty should be the same as drug/drink-driving, as studies show that the impairment when texting is at least as bad. 12-month ban, retest, and insurance premiums raised appropriately please.
Penalties are irrelevant as long as chance of conviction is <0.1%.
These people don't just text once when they get caught, they are texting many times a week and in most cases there is no consequence.
This.
Hand out the same penalties then. Start with 12 month bans, and work up from there.
Hand out the same penalties then. Start with 12 month bans, and work up from there.
[/quote]
This statement - When exactly did it need to be socially unacceptable for people to stop doing something that's been illegal almost as long as there's been cars?
Even that's not enough to stop a lot of arrogant morons doing everything from eating cereal to doing their hair when driving, so I'm at a loss to explain why making phone use socially unacceptable will make any real world difference.
It's not like people are going to see someone doing it and throw rocks or blockade said driver, is it? (that'd be nice though)