Distracted, phone-using, uninsured driver jailed for six years after killing cyclist in hit-and-run collision

Don't worry!  The last government (or was it the one before, or the one before that?) was all over this, and announced:

A comprehensive review of road traffic offences.

And more recently:

New offenses of causing death or injury by dangerous cycling (was to be backed by the now-current government)

er...

BUT the guidelines for maximum penalties for some offenses were increased (if drivers are brought to court, and if charged with the more serious offense and the system doesn't just accept a guilty plea to a lesser one, and if convicted, and if the judge thinks the case is of sufficient gravity...)

So I guess we can put this one to bed for another generation.

Exactly. It's all very well having discussions about what the appropriate sentence is for the worst case events, but most of the time that's an irrelevance, because most routine phone users don't expect to get caught and they don't think they are going to cause a crash.

It would be much more effective to focus resources on catching and punishing those who use phones before anyone gets hurt, and for it to happen promptly with immediate consequences. IMO six points on your licence is all very well, but if you assume the odds of getting caught once are slim, and twice is negligible - does that worry the people who are arrogant or selfish enough to assume they'll be fine?

most routine phone users don't expect to get caught

It's slightly different in Lancashire- here it's almost all routine phone users know that even if they're caught with indisputable evidence Lancashire Constabulary won't take any action because they don't believe it's a real offence and have decided that particular law, along with most of the other road traffic laws, doesn't apply here. For the few who haven't seen it yet, this is another offence by an Amazon Prime driver in exactly the same place- both offences reported with video and stills, no response to either of them

Yes, that's what I mean. People need to expect consequences are likely, or at least plausible. 

Politicians, cheered on by certain media outlets, love to talk about tougher penalties and longer prison sentences to crack down on crime, but in reality people who break the law (all kinds of laws) rarely stop to think about how big a sentence might be for a particular crime. If they don't expect to get caught or for there to be any consequences then they aren't thinking about whether it's three, six or twelve years in prison or points on their licence.

On the other hand, hearing of a friend or colleague who got points for using their phone while driving is going to give more people pause for thought.

IMO the police and those in government responsible for road safety really are missing a trick by not making it easier for traffic offences caught on camera to be prosecuted. I fully accept that there are cases where ambiguity is too great to pursue a prosecution, but rather than simply dismiss those cases there could be better advice and a more structured submission process to help witnesses provide evidence of sufficient quality. 

FionaJJ wrote:

On the other hand, hearing of a friend or colleague who got points for using their phone while driving is going to give more people pause for thought.

To be honest, even that's probably not immediate enough, and too susceptible to being rationalised away ("they're irresponsible but I'm not", or "it must have been completely undeserved", etc.).

Maybe roadside signs ("250 drivers fined for phone use in the last 6 months") might make it more front of mind in the moment (though not so much if it's "1 driver..."), but the harder part to solve which would really shift the needle is how to make it socially unacceptable, rather than just potentially consequential.

mdavidford wrote:

Maybe roadside signs ("250 drivers fined for phone use in the last 6 months") might make it more front of mind in the moment (though not so much if it's "1 driver..."), but the harder part to solve which would really shift the needle is how to make it socially unacceptable, rather than just potentially consequential.

How did they manage it with drink-driving?

I know that a lot of people do still drink- and drug- drive, but it is socially unacceptable widely enough across the population to have an effect.

Drink driving?

Over half a century of government-funded national campaigning.  (An interesting review of this from 2012 here).

Fairly early recognition of the economic impact e.g. worth spending x million on campaigning per year because the cost of death and injury from drink driving is a lot more than x.  (Which suggests phone campaigning may be harder - I think mobile phones and their use is generally seen as a "good" / has economic value - there have been more equivocal attitudes towards drinking especially in the past...)

Clear legislation.  Test which isn't commonly disputed successfully in court (as opposed to "we saw them with a phone in hand...").  Yes, we can now sometimes get phone use logs, and for drink driving defences have had luck with the "I had to go home and have a couple of swift ones to calm my nerves" / "we only managed to test after X hours" etc. ...

Effects of breaking the law often felt directly by the perpetrators (this definitely applies to speeding and also phone use but I wonder if the latter is more often associated with "hit a vulnerable road user while not looking but didn't crash myself"?)

Getting suppliers on-side (e.g. the drinks / pub trade).  Do phone companies (never mind makers of apps...) believe this is an issue for them?  What are they prepared to do?

Perhaps more likely to get away with phone use than driving intoxicated (harder to detect / lower rate of crashes per instance of breaking law)?

Phones - we're fighting against normalisation.  Phone use is now something which everyone may do at any time / everywhere.  Indeed people are often expected to be available straight away...

brooksby wrote:

How did they manage it with drink-driving?

I know that a lot of people do still drink- and drug- drive, but it is socially unacceptable widely enough across the population to have an effect.

I can't be sure, but I think a fair chunk of those still drink driving are people with drinking problems, as well as the usual sorts who are convinced they'll be fine and/or the ones who moan about the nanny state.

I'd like to think that being on the phone while driving is also socially unacceptable, but it's not like getting into the car on front of friends after sinking a few pints. The people whose opinions you care about don't see it. I think there's a lot more mileage in getting out the message of the consequences of a 'momentary lapse in concentration' caused by phone use, along with enforcement.

There are speech to text options on lots of phones, so in theory if you get a text it may have been narrated. Not that I think that's much less distracting. 

Proper enforcement is going to be the only thing that works for some. Some people won't stop until they are banned, or believe it's very likely it will happen.

"But our rural A-roads are too narrow..."

Compare and contrast - a random location in NL.  (I am not sure the NL version is quite comparable to an A-road - but the location / space is kind of similar).

The NL version does use a bit more space (especially to make the turn safer for drivers) and the bi-directional cycle path is set back (also look how much better the side road crossing is).  Hard to tell but it doesn't look super wide - but for a countryside location I'm sure it's adequate.  Overall width is really narrow here - but still with a separate cycle path.

I think one of the first things they'd do in the UK version (apart from physically separating motor vehicles and cyclists) is bar ANY overtaking - maybe with a physical barrier.  I'd bet there have been "incidents" due to that near here... Surely no drivers could object to "safety" for themselves?  If it saves one car occupant...!

That road is shameful.  The space used in the median should be a cycle lane. It wouldn't even cost much.  It was the road that killed David Breen, because it didn't protect him from the dangerous driver.
A couple of notes to the pic of the Dutch road and cyclepath.  The sharks' teeth show that the drivers in the side road must give way to the cyclists on the cyclepath- much better than the usual UK solution of having to stop for every side road.

Another major difference in outlook between UK and NL - I'm not sure in NL such a road would be thought safe (or not at that given speed / without changing to road layout itself to signal lower speeds) for non-signalised pedestrian crossings.

OTOH in the UK we probably can't imagine a "fast road" having full-stop pedestrian crossings.  How would you get anywhere?  And nobody walks there anyway...

chrisonabike wrote:

OTOH in the UK we probably can't imagine a "fast road" having full-stop pedestrian crossings.  How would you get anywhere?  And nobody walks there anyway...

Yep, no provision for crossing pedestrians. A couple of years ago I cycled down the old canal to the marina and had to cross the road here:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/LvJETpuhumom5F6SA

It was a summer afternoon and there was a constant stream of traffic in both directions. I must have waited 10 minutes before a couple of kind drivers actually saw me and thought to slow to let me cross. During this time several cars were let in/out of the marina junction by drivers on the main road!

The NL manage to do so much better, even with a far higher population density than we have in the UK.

I like how someone has put a shared footway sign incorrectly above the cycle lane.

You only have to look at that road to see there's plenty of space for a shared footway down one side.  Just remove the hatching and extend the footway into the road.  You could easily fit a 4-metre-wide facility down there.

It's so common for me to be waiting in a group on someone who is coming by car and we'll get a text saying 'there in 5' or something like that, obviously sent while driving. I haven't once seen even a raised eyebrow about receiving this type of message. It's different for drink driving, but the outcomes are the same as far as I know.

You never say anything to the people concerned then?

Sometimes. I personally don't get any '5 minutes away' texts though, or only once.

Does having a back and forth text conversation with someone you know is driving make you partly liable for any collisions they cause? Has this ever come up in a court case?