1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Hands free phone ban when driving...

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Malcolm_Stewart, Aug 13, 2019.

  1. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    Yes it is. It is another exemption. I remember once I had a complaint about one of my off duty officers who was using his phone in his hand whilst following a suspected drink driver on the way home from work and the driver was subsequently arrested. His father, a solicitor, phoned me as I was his supervisor, to complain that a police officer was driving whilst using a handheld phone and wanted him dealt with. I had great pleasure informing the solicitor to read up on the law, and sent him the copy of the section.
  2. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    Doncha love it when lawyers don't know the law..
  3. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I can see a whole range of problems with the proposal:
    1. The real time traffic data we now enjoy is derived from vehicle speed and density derived from mobile phone triangulation. If people can't make or receive calls they may decide to turn their phones off as well and that removes the source of raw data which wouldn't be good.
    2. In the event of an accident a phone that is switched off, or inaccessible, can't make a call quickly in a situation where seconds may count. (There was a case where a light aircraft accident near Bembridge couldn't be located because of the lack of radar but where the use of a mobile phone would have made a considerable difference to the speed of response, the phones were out of reach)
    3. Taxi services will become difficult to operate, Uber is essentially mobile phone reliant.
    4. It will be difficult to determine whether a driver is using a handsfree phone, as already pointed out a phone can be operated entirely by voice command as can many car related functions.The police will need to determine whether the driver is talking to his/her car, a phone app or some one on a phone call. Difficult to be sure in the, possibly, short time available.
    5. There is nothing to stop a passenger using the handsfree system, yes it is still a distraction but the driver isn't using it.
    6. The Bluetooth connection, used for handsfree may also be used to stream music so it isn't as simple as just disabling the connection.

    That's just what I can think of now but there may be others
  4. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Unfortunately we have seen examples where police officers don't know the law either, hence the AP rights card.
    Scphoto likes this.
  5. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    That does beg the response "define Emergency". The problem being that some might decide to act first and ask questions afterwards.
  6. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    The emergency services always say they'd sooner people ring them where someone believes there's an emergency than have the attitude "someone else has already made the call"
  7. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    Travelling with teenagers in the car when they're not able to continue their on-line existence would involve much more distractions than even an occasional incoming call taken handsfree.
    If drivers aren't capable of controlling the car with distractions they shouldn't be driving. Surely it's not that hard to leave the phone ringing while completing a round about...
  8. AndyTake2

    AndyTake2 Well-Known Member

    First of all, I would like to apologise to all those who don't realise that the smiley face at the end of the post indicates that the post is intended as a joke, I accept that not everybody's intellect can stretch this far, and I must do more to make it clear to those who are incapable of recognising these posts as such.

    Secondly, regarding research into the legislation about the inclusion of automated calls to the emergency services, I apologise for not including the legislation.

    The correct legislation, that is, not some half-arsed excuse for paperwork culled from anywhere one sees fit.

    I originally found that it was to be law when ordering my new car, which of course will come with the system. It clearly states in the paperwork that it is a requirement on all cars made in the EU.
    It took all of 20 seconds to google the actual law, rather than reading comics.

    The legislation is available here:
    A decent summary

    To summarise, and for those who are too uninterested or are too intellectually challenged to read such long words from start to finish

    "In April 2015, the European Parliament and the Council found an agreement on this proposal that provided for:
    the mandatory fitting of 112-based eCall in-vehicle system on all new types of M1 and N1 vehicles from 31 March 2018 onward."
    "The Regulation (EU) 2015/758 was published in the Official Journal on 19 May 2015.
    Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/78 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/79 were published in the Official Journal on 17 January 2017."

    Thirdly, regarding personal insults such as 'leaver'
    Please feel free to take your cranium out of your rectum and go and auto-fornicate.
    If you were to take your own advice, and do a little research (i.e. look on this forum) you would find that I am about as much a 'Leaver' as I am a bloody unicorn.
  9. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    My apologies for calling you a leaver.

    OTOH: if you're going to talk about legislation of that nature and know where it is why don't you provide the links in the first place? None of my searches turned up those sites proving that those of us with our craniums in our rectums sometimes sometimes need assistance to find the evidence you possess.

    As for auto-fornication it would obviously be impolite of me to deprive you of the same pleasure.
  10. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    The basic information provided by a motor vehicle HUD is Speed. Navigation is only provided when there is an active route, I only use my navigation system to find places that I have never visited before so 95% of the time there is no active route and thus nothing on the HUD except speed.

    The main benefit of a HUD is that it removes the need to look down for speed information.

    I think you may have slightly missed the point here, you don't have to have been involved in an accident to report it. You may not even be on the same road or carriage way as the accident. Simply preventing the transmission of phone signals when or just preventing outgoing calls could actually have the opposite of the desired effect if it prevents emergency calls. A second effect of using motion detection would be that phones wouldn't be usable in trains, buses, ships or aeroplanes where the law is different. Pilots have been known to use mobile phones when other communication systems have failed, motion detection would have disabled their phones and potentially been a contributory factor in an accident.

    It seems the Law of unintended consequences is in play. Whilst it is difficult to argue that the use of a phone by a driver is anything but distracting, there are plenty of occasions where the receipt of a call can remove a distraction e.g. a driver heading to a hospital where a family member is being treated receives a call saying that all is well. I am also well aware that other calls may have the opposite effect. However the major flaw in the argument is that it would be a law that was almost impossible to enforce.
  11. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    When has that ever stopped legislators with too much time on their hands adding laws to the books?
  12. beatnik69

    beatnik69 Well-Known Member

    "Officer, I was on the phone as I called 999 to report that I suspect that the tread on the blue Ford Focus was below the legal limit."
  13. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    You are correct in that observation, unfortunately!
    There is indeed plenty of legislation that serves no useful purpose. In this case however there are distractions on our roads that could be legislated against and policed, such as illuminated billboard screens on the M25 either side of the M4, redundant signage left after roadworks, over complex road signs etc. All relatively easily enforced because the average motorist would probably applaud the intent and get stuck in with reporting things.
  14. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    Maybe this should be in the grind my gears thread. I really do object to the local road signs that say "changed road layout". They have been there for about three years now!

  15. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Who else remembers the Cones Hotline? Child of the boy that ran away from the circus to become an accountant: born June 1992, quietly put to rest September 1995 after a life notorious only for the tide of apathy it created... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cones_Hotline
  16. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    Ok. Having spent the past 2 days in Bordeaux where these things seem to be transport of choice I agree. Real PITA. You are right they don’t half shift. They go faster than cars which have to travel slowly due to environment on some roads.
  17. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Just a few yards from here there is a road junction with three signs on the same pole, one pole each side of the entrance. They are, from top to bottom No Entry, Clearway, End. The lower two are redundant because of the top, "No Entry" sign. They are a distraction, are they a more serious distraction than using a hands free phone? In this instance, probably not but, given that I was able to find such signage within 5 minutes of home, how common are redundant signs?

    The point? Simply that there are plenty of other distractions that are easier to police and potentially or greater importance but they don't create a revenue stream.
  18. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    You may enjoy the smaller roads west of Dumfries too... they don't seem to bother with signs telling you there is a corner every few seconds. They haven't tried to idiot proof those roads yet!
  19. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    There are plenty of roads in Devon where they just say "bends for 3 miles" or whatever.
  20. beatnik69

    beatnik69 Well-Known Member

    Recently a council removed a "ghost bike" that had been left as a memorial to Carol Boardman, mother of Chris. The reason? It was decided that the bike was a 'distraction' for drivers. Would drivers be distracted by any bicycle leaning up against a fence or hedge at the roadside? If so, surely they should not be driving. What about the massive billboards, many of which change their image every few seconds? Do they not constitute a distraction? Their whole raison d'etre is to attract attention.
    daft_biker likes this.

Share This Page