Driving On Mobile
22 November 2011, 07:26 PM
#1
Driving On Mobile
If you get the urge to do it..... don't
We've been told by a couple of insurers that a CU80 convicttion (driving when on a mobile) will next year be rated the same as a DR10 (drink driving).
ie... they'll either put a big increase on your policy, or refuse to quote at all.
You have been warned
We've been told by a couple of insurers that a CU80 convicttion (driving when on a mobile) will next year be rated the same as a DR10 (drink driving).
ie... they'll either put a big increase on your policy, or refuse to quote at all.
You have been warned
22 November 2011, 07:28 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
If you get the urge to do it..... don't
We've been told by a couple of insurers that a CU80 convicttion (driving when on a mobile) will next year be rated the same as a DR10 (drink driving).
ie... they'll either put a big increase on your policy, or refuse to quote at all.
You have been warned
We've been told by a couple of insurers that a CU80 convicttion (driving when on a mobile) will next year be rated the same as a DR10 (drink driving).
ie... they'll either put a big increase on your policy, or refuse to quote at all.
You have been warned
22 November 2011, 08:34 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Trending Topics
22 November 2011, 11:14 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
What's to explain? I'm assuming you read the quote that was posted with it and the post it came from? and the subject under discussion?
About time something was done to make people sit up and notice that using a mobile whilst driving is against the law.
About time something was done to make people sit up and notice that using a mobile whilst driving is against the law.
22 November 2011, 11:18 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't seem to me that driving while on a mobile is in the same league as drunk driving. you can just drop a phone, but you can't just sober up.
Moley, care to name the insurers? I expect that some will not follow this route and see what extra business they can pick up.
Moley, care to name the insurers? I expect that some will not follow this route and see what extra business they can pick up.
23 November 2011, 12:20 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
massive pet hate of mine also
how can hand held or push to talk RT's be legal to use but not mobiles.
im not overly familiar with the law - but from waht i see it assumes people using phones are distracted, and dont have full control of vehicle if an emergency occurs? like changing radio stations,pushing button for electric windows to go down, adjusting electris mirrors, smoking in a vehicle, adjusting rear veiw mirrors, eating, drinking from the cupholders manufactureres provide the list goes on.
ban them all or none imo.
how can hand held or push to talk RT's be legal to use but not mobiles.
im not overly familiar with the law - but from waht i see it assumes people using phones are distracted, and dont have full control of vehicle if an emergency occurs? like changing radio stations,pushing button for electric windows to go down, adjusting electris mirrors, smoking in a vehicle, adjusting rear veiw mirrors, eating, drinking from the cupholders manufactureres provide the list goes on.
ban them all or none imo.
23 November 2011, 01:17 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
I's about ******* time that his got taken seriously
I commute on a motorbike, and young people, especially girls, playing with smart phones whilst driving cause me more scares than anything else these days
They easily outnumber mothers in tanks now
I commute on a motorbike, and young people, especially girls, playing with smart phones whilst driving cause me more scares than anything else these days
They easily outnumber mothers in tanks now
23 November 2011, 02:08 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't seem to me that driving while on a mobile is in the same league as drunk driving. you can just drop a phone, but you can't just sober up.
Moley, care to name the insurers? I expect that some will not follow this route and see what extra business they can pick up.
Moley, care to name the insurers? I expect that some will not follow this route and see what extra business they can pick up.
Yeah, really safe!!!
23 November 2011, 06:55 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
) also frequent offenders...Boils my ****
23 November 2011, 07:59 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Are there any actual statistics that show what percentage of people who use the mobile cause an accident compared to the number of people who are drunk and then cause an accident?
Its a valid point scooby bigal makes about seeing 5 people on phones. Im guessing non of the caused an accident that day. I wonder whether if there had been 5 drunk people driving past could the same could be said?
*edit* Please dont get me wrong, Im not supporting the use of mobiles at all, just questioning insurance companies comparing them to drink driving charges and hoping it is valid and not just another excuse to shove the price up, as there is too much of that already.
I feel as though this should be justified and a discussion based on stats may be of more use rather than just emotional comments such 'as try telling it to so and so whos daughter died' etc. People die everyday on the road if we take that knee jerk reaction cars will be banned full stop.
Its a valid point scooby bigal makes about seeing 5 people on phones. Im guessing non of the caused an accident that day. I wonder whether if there had been 5 drunk people driving past could the same could be said?
*edit* Please dont get me wrong, Im not supporting the use of mobiles at all, just questioning insurance companies comparing them to drink driving charges and hoping it is valid and not just another excuse to shove the price up, as there is too much of that already.
I feel as though this should be justified and a discussion based on stats may be of more use rather than just emotional comments such 'as try telling it to so and so whos daughter died' etc. People die everyday on the road if we take that knee jerk reaction cars will be banned full stop.
Last edited by SRSport; 23 November 2011 at 08:06 AM.
23 November 2011, 08:14 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Please excuse my Spelling - its not the best !!
Posts: 2,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I'm not a fan of people using a mobile when driving or people smoking when driving -& a lot of people don’t need any more distractions than they already have got.
I don’t agree with just banning things - would much prefer to see money & time put into continuous driver education - ie a driver re assessment after a set period eg 5 years. This I think would do more than simply banning things.
Yes we have seen some high profile and very tragic case where deaths have been caused while on phone / texting and driving but see an equal number through drink driving. I’m still not seen anything conclusive that say driving on a mobile is the same as drink driving. The only way I see this going apart from insurance companies using any excuse to extract even more premiums is to have all cars fitted with phone blockers?
Kids crying / arguing in the back are probably the biggest distraction going. Are we going to ban those as well?
Richard
I don’t agree with just banning things - would much prefer to see money & time put into continuous driver education - ie a driver re assessment after a set period eg 5 years. This I think would do more than simply banning things.
Yes we have seen some high profile and very tragic case where deaths have been caused while on phone / texting and driving but see an equal number through drink driving. I’m still not seen anything conclusive that say driving on a mobile is the same as drink driving. The only way I see this going apart from insurance companies using any excuse to extract even more premiums is to have all cars fitted with phone blockers?
Kids crying / arguing in the back are probably the biggest distraction going. Are we going to ban those as well?
Richard
23 November 2011, 08:19 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (41)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the woods...........555 Wagon Sqn
Posts: 13,347
Received 55 Likes
on
42 Posts
there have been quite a few studies that have shown using a phone whilst driving is actually worse than being over the drink drive limit (no I don’t have any links; Google it)...good work insurance companies and a big f**k you to those that continue to use their phones 
23 November 2011, 09:11 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
What happens if you want to change the CD in the car head unit whilst driving? What happens if your eating a pastie whilst driving? What happens if the kids start playing up in the back? I thought the smoking was a health issue rather than a distraction issue.
All these things distract us from driving. I think the drinking and mobile phone use are about the only ones that can be detected by the police hence the fines and the insurance loading. Next you'll be the getting a GREGG35 for eating a pastie whilst in charge of a vehicle.
23 November 2011, 09:19 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In which case i would like to see those who drive without MOT, tax and or insurance treated the same way and also those who drive with bald/illegal tyres!
23 November 2011, 09:59 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: There on the stair
Posts: 10,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before they can start loading the Insurance though, the Courts need to be able to convict the driver:
A mate got that email, which makes worrying reading.
Avon & Somerset Police RPU wrote:Thank you for your E-mail regarding persons apparently using mobile
phones while driving. I apologise for the delay in replying but I needed to do some research before replying. Police officers who have reported persons for this offence are finding that if the motorist pleads not guilty it is increasingly difficult to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the offence under Regulation 110 of the Road Vehicles(
Construction and Use ) Regulations 1986 has been committed. The offence states that:
No person shall cause or permit any other person to drive a motor vehicle on a road while that other person is using -
(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
The device referred to in b above is:
A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
Hand-held is defined as:
a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication
function.
An interactive communication function includes the following -
(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv) providing access to the internet;
In order to prove the offence to the satisfaction of the court it is necessary to show that a phone call or interactive communication was taking place at the time the action was witnessed. It is not an offence under this section to be recording dictation, or listening to music etc. The police currently have no power to seize the device. Your "evidence"
will show a driver holding a device and possibly talking, but that does not prove that a phone call or interactive communication was being made at that time. The police often receive calls from members of the public
regarding this topic, and the advice from the CPS is that, even in circumstances such as yours, where you would be willing to make a statement to prove the footage was authentic and to appear in court as a witness to that effect, it would not be possible to prove a phone call or other interactive communication was being made at that time. We are
currently liaising with the Crown Prosecution Service to try to find a solution, but, unless there is a change in the law, we will not be able to proceed on the basis of your evidence alone.
phones while driving. I apologise for the delay in replying but I needed to do some research before replying. Police officers who have reported persons for this offence are finding that if the motorist pleads not guilty it is increasingly difficult to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the offence under Regulation 110 of the Road Vehicles(
Construction and Use ) Regulations 1986 has been committed. The offence states that:
No person shall cause or permit any other person to drive a motor vehicle on a road while that other person is using -
(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
The device referred to in b above is:
A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
Hand-held is defined as:
a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication
function.
An interactive communication function includes the following -
(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv) providing access to the internet;
In order to prove the offence to the satisfaction of the court it is necessary to show that a phone call or interactive communication was taking place at the time the action was witnessed. It is not an offence under this section to be recording dictation, or listening to music etc. The police currently have no power to seize the device. Your "evidence"
will show a driver holding a device and possibly talking, but that does not prove that a phone call or interactive communication was being made at that time. The police often receive calls from members of the public
regarding this topic, and the advice from the CPS is that, even in circumstances such as yours, where you would be willing to make a statement to prove the footage was authentic and to appear in court as a witness to that effect, it would not be possible to prove a phone call or other interactive communication was being made at that time. We are
currently liaising with the Crown Prosecution Service to try to find a solution, but, unless there is a change in the law, we will not be able to proceed on the basis of your evidence alone.
23 November 2011, 10:02 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
23 November 2011, 10:15 AM
#30
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
It does but the police can request phone records of calls made/track said mobile between masts for call duration/handovers/interaction/access to internet, though access to internet can be tricky if you use your device as a sat nav for instance, but calls can be tracked with no issues, 2/3g etc.
Tony
