log in
register

Cars should be banned near schools to tackle air pollution, says public health chief

  • This topic has 33 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by Legs_Eleven_Worcester.
  • Creator
    Topic
  • March 11, 2019 at 12:13 pm #29436
    hawkinspeter

    From https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cars-should-be-banned-near-schools-to-tackle-air-pollution-says-public-health-chief-a8817286.html

    [quote]Professor Paul Cosford, director for health protection and medical director of PHE, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I’m a doctor, I see a figure of 35,000 to 40,000 people each year dying as a result of the harm that is caused by air pollution.

    “And what I also see is that the technologies are available, the things that we need to do we know about, so this is a matter of how we take this issue as seriously as we need to and how we move the technologies and the planning and all of that into reality so we actually deal with this problem for us and for future generations.”

    Asked about a proposal to ban cars from the school run, he said: “I do think that if we consider this to be an issue of future generations, for our children, let’s have a generation of children brought up free from the scourge and the harms of air pollution.

    “And that does then take you to ‘What can we do about making sure schools are at least as clean as possible?’

    “We should stop idling outside schools, we should make sure that children can walk or cycle to school, and we should make sure that schools work with their parents about how they can do their best for this.”

    Calling for a culture change, he said: “If we were having a conversation about 30,000 people dying each year because of a polluted water supply, I think we would have a very different conversation. It would be about ‘What do we need to do now and how quickly can we do it?’.”

    [/quote]

    Edit: Also seen this article from The Independent about shipping’s toxic fumes, though that’s “only” 3000 early deaths: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ship-air-pollution-deaths-uk-asthma-heart-lung-disease-a8812486.html

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 33 total)
1 2 3
  • Author
    Replies
  • March 13, 2019 at 12:14 pm #937505
    0
    Legs_Eleven_Worcester
    Jetmans Dad wrote:
    The problem with the current laws is not that the £200 fine is not a deterrent, it is that drivers don’t think they are going to get caught. You could make the fine £3,000, but drivers will continue to do it as long as they expect to be able to get away with it. 

    Yes, that’s why I mentioned manpower to police it. 

    But whilst £200 would certainly ‘deter’ me (if I were of a mind to get my mobile telephone out when behind the wheel, which I don’t as my parents taught me the meaning of the word ‘respect’), I remain convinced that it won’t ‘deter’ someone who spends ten times that on a single tyre for his prosthesis.  

    March 13, 2019 at 12:11 pm #937503
    0
    Legs_Eleven_Worcester
    freespirit1 wrote:
    For mobile phone use, how about removal of thumbs as a punishment?

    ‘Freespirit’ for PM ! 

    March 13, 2019 at 12:11 pm #937501
    0
    hawkinspeter
    freespirit1 wrote:
    For mobile phone use, how about removal of thumbs as a punishment?

    That’d be unfair – what if they ever need to hitch-hike?

    March 13, 2019 at 12:09 pm #937499
    0
    Jetmans Dad

    The problem with the current

    The problem with the current laws is not that the £200 fine is not a deterrent, it is that drivers don’t think they are going to get caught. You could make the fine £3,000, but drivers will continue to do it as long as they expect to be able to get away with it. 

    March 13, 2019 at 12:06 pm #937497
    0
    freespirit1

    For mobile phone use, how

    For mobile phone use, how about removal of thumbs as a punishment?

    March 13, 2019 at 11:07 am #937495
    0
    Legs_Eleven_Worcester
    maviczap wrote:
    kil0ran wrote:
    I just don’t get the idling thing. There’s a bloke who drops his kid at one of the after-school clubs my son goes to and then sits outside with the engine idling for an hour (on his phone of course). And it’s an SLK 300 so not exactly frugal on the petrol. It’s not like you need the engine running to power the entertainment system or heated seats is it

    With respect if they can afford an SLK300 they aren’t worried about the cost of fuel.

    And this is another reason why a ‘maximum’ fine of £200 for using a mobile phone, is not a deterrent.  I’d like to see a system where a first offence of using a mobile telephone incurs an automatic (and non-discretionary) custodial sentence of one year, a ten-year-ban, and a fine of 5% of one’s gross annual salary.   

    This would require a large investment in manpower of course.  

    I guarantee you that within six months, mobile phone use at the wheel would be at less than 1%.

    March 12, 2019 at 3:07 pm #937493
    0
    ktache

    The arsehole that crushed 8

    The arsehole that crushed 8 people to death on the M1, using his Fed Ex artic, had been on a handsfree call for over an hour.  He didn’t even brake.

    March 12, 2019 at 2:53 pm #937491
    0
    srchar

    Given that it’s already

    Given that it’s already proven that having a conversation on the phone, even hands-free (and even just listening to someone else’s phone conversation) impairs similarly to a few pints of lager, there’s good reason to simply ban voice conversations on mobile phones in cars altogether. I already hang up on Mrs Srchar if she calls me while driving; payback for her refusing to speak to me if I don’t wear a helmet… actually, not wearing a helmet would obviate the need to hang up… 🙂

    If a call is that important, pull over.

    March 12, 2019 at 1:17 pm #937489
    0
    hawkinspeter
    Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
    HawkinsPeter wrote:
    Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
    ktache wrote:
    There is a case for actually enforcing existing mobile phone legislation.  We all know that a large percentage of those waiting motorists will have their faces buried in a smartphone, and it is very simple, if your engine is on you are driving. 

    I’ve always wondered – not being au fait with mobile technology – whether it would be possible to tell if a driver has made a call or used data on a smartphone, whilst the vehicle’s engine is switched on.  

    If it does, then that driver should get thirty working days to explain why he was doing so.  A suitable explanation would be danger to life or property.  

    Once that thirty days is past, his licence is suspended for two years, with no possibility of appeal or getting it back for ‘hardship’. 

    Ah, well.  I can dream.  

    The difficulty is proving that the person driving at the time was also the person using the phone. Generally, this requires a witness or video evidence.

    Yeah, that was what I meant.  Is it possible to tell that the call did not just come from the interior of the vehicle, but from the driver’s seat? 

    Probably not.  

    Even if it came from the driver’s seat, you’d still have to prove that they were holding the phone and not using it via a bluetooth handsfree device.

    However, I don’t think you can reliably determine the location of a phone to that level of accuracy.

    March 12, 2019 at 1:13 pm #937487
    0
    alansmurphy

    Not. A bit like Strava won’t

    Not. A bit like Strava won’t know which way you’re facing on your bike…

    March 12, 2019 at 1:08 pm #937485
    0
    Legs_Eleven_Worcester
    HawkinsPeter wrote:
    Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
    ktache wrote:
    There is a case for actually enforcing existing mobile phone legislation.  We all know that a large percentage of those waiting motorists will have their faces buried in a smartphone, and it is very simple, if your engine is on you are driving. 

    I’ve always wondered – not being au fait with mobile technology – whether it would be possible to tell if a driver has made a call or used data on a smartphone, whilst the vehicle’s engine is switched on.  

    If it does, then that driver should get thirty working days to explain why he was doing so.  A suitable explanation would be danger to life or property.  

    Once that thirty days is past, his licence is suspended for two years, with no possibility of appeal or getting it back for ‘hardship’. 

    Ah, well.  I can dream.  

    The difficulty is proving that the person driving at the time was also the person using the phone. Generally, this requires a witness or video evidence.

    Yeah, that was what I meant.  Is it possible to tell that the call did not just come from the interior of the vehicle, but from the driver’s seat? 

    Probably not.  

    March 12, 2019 at 1:02 pm #937483
    0
    hawkinspeter
    Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
    ktache wrote:
    There is a case for actually enforcing existing mobile phone legislation.  We all know that a large percentage of those waiting motorists will have their faces buried in a smartphone, and it is very simple, if your engine is on you are driving. 

    I’ve always wondered – not being au fait with mobile technology – whether it would be possible to tell if a driver has made a call or used data on a smartphone, whilst the vehicle’s engine is switched on.  

    If it does, then that driver should get thirty working days to explain why he was doing so.  A suitable explanation would be danger to life or property.  

    Once that thirty days is past, his licence is suspended for two years, with no possibility of appeal or getting it back for ‘hardship’. 

    Ah, well.  I can dream.  

    The difficulty is proving that the person driving at the time was also the person using the phone. Generally, this requires a witness or video evidence.

    March 12, 2019 at 12:56 pm #937481
    0
    Legs_Eleven_Worcester
    LastBoyScout wrote:
    One of the roads closest to my daughter’s school has 2 signs at the junction saying:

    “Private Road

    No Parking

    No Turning”

    Another has marked bays and the signs say:

    “Resident Permit Holders Only”.

    Neither set of signs has stopped any parent that feels like it from parking in either road in order to drop off the kids, even though there are other unrestricted roads near by.

    Because they can.  And because if they get fined, they’d be in a Daily Mail article, complete with mournful ‘hard done to’ face as they hold the fine up in front of them.   The ‘journalist’ and the commentators would rage about ‘the war on the motorist’, and the council would cancel the fine.  

    And so it goes on.  

     

    March 12, 2019 at 12:52 pm #937479
    0
    Legs_Eleven_Worcester
    ktache wrote:
    There is a case for actually enforcing existing mobile phone legislation.  We all know that a large percentage of those waiting motorists will have their faces buried in a smartphone, and it is very simple, if your engine is on you are driving. 

    I’ve always wondered – not being au fait with mobile technology – whether it would be possible to tell if a driver has made a call or used data on a smartphone, whilst the vehicle’s engine is switched on.  

    If it does, then that driver should get thirty working days to explain why he was doing so.  A suitable explanation would be danger to life or property.  

    Once that thirty days is past, his licence is suspended for two years, with no possibility of appeal or getting it back for ‘hardship’. 

    Ah, well.  I can dream.  

    March 12, 2019 at 12:47 pm #937477
    0
    LastBoyScout

    One of the roads closest to

    One of the roads closest to my daughter’s school has 2 signs at the junction saying:

    “Private Road

    No Parking

    No Turning”

    Another has marked bays and the signs say:

    “Resident Permit Holders Only”.

    Neither set of signs has stopped any parent that feels like it from parking in either road in order to drop off the kids, even though there are other unrestricted roads near by.

    And I’m using “parking” in the loosest possible sense – often, it’s more like “abandoned”.

    For the record, we walk to/from school most of the time, unless dropping off on the way to somewhere (in which case we’re going to drive past the school anyway) or the weather is truly foul.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 33 total)
1 2 3
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.