Step In The Right Direction.........?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/now-drivers-will-face-%c2%a3200-fine-for-even-touching-their-phone-while-driving-as-uk-installs-new-hd-traffic-cameras-that-can-catch-motorists-in-the-act/ar-AAJFixx?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout
But they should treat it the same as DD, much more dangerous especially texting.

[Hopkirk]

Perhaps make them drive over the phone.

[diddlydo]

TTT - for once I totally agree with you.

[drmorgans]

There seems to be a rise in the number of unlicensed or banned drivers who only receive a token punishment for driving without insurance. The penalty should be more than a few hundred quid.

[chelle7272]

Yes totally agree. It's almost beyond belief how many drivers I see on their phones, I'm glad it will be becoming easier to enforce as well.

[Zacs-Master]

A step in the right direction but I'd challenge your statement that it's more dangerous than DD.

Drivers using mobile phones were responsible for 33 deaths in 2017, according to new figures (32 in 2016).

Between 1979 and 2014 an average of 666 people were killed in drink driving related accidents in Great Britain each year and an average of 3,551 people were seriously injured in drink driving related accidents.

[THECORBYLOON]

Although that average is correct, figures from recent years have been much lower.

In 2017, there were up to 270 deaths in crashes where at least one driver or rider was over the alcohol limit.

I do agree that drunk-driving causes more deaths than using a 'phone.

[Zacs-Master]

Thanks TCL.

[bhg481]

I would argue that the statistics for accidents involving phone use are unreliable as it needs someone to have seen the driver using the phone, so the accident rate will be higher than quoted. All drivers are drink/drug tested after an accident, so those figures are more reliable.

[THECORBYLOON]

Information on the internet suggests 'phones are seized when an incident results in death or a life-changing injury.

[Zacs-Master]

' it needs someone to have seen the driver using the phone'

Nope, it doesn't. Phone's can be checked post accident.

[bhg481]

ZM - but are they as a matter of routine?

[Zacs-Master]

I've no idea, do you?

[bhg481]

ZM - no, but I suspect it's a whole lot more difficult than a drink/drugs test and is probably only done if there is real suspicion that the phone was being used.

[Zacs-Master]

Indeed, but given the 2017 figures, I doubt that there are sufficient discrepancies to make up the rather large difference between DD stats and phone stats, so my challenging of Tora's assertion still stands.

[THECORBYLOON]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/23/under-reporting-mobile-phone-related-car-accidents-massive-problem/amp/

[bhg481]

ZM - //I doubt that there are sufficient discrepancies to make up the rather large difference between DD stats and phone stats//

I think you're right. The other thing to take into account is the fact that the phone-user is only dangerous whilst on the phone whilst the drunk is dangerous for the whole trip.

[Zacs-Master]

Yes.

[hereIam]

I agree, definitely a step in the right direction. I think it's sheer arrogance to use your 'phone whilst driving.

[10ClarionSt]

It's well meant, but it won't stop people doing it. More drivers use their phones in their cars now than they ever did. At the moment, if you are caught, you are very, very unlucky. And people know that. But it might work. All the measures that have been tried so far have had little impact. We'll see.

[THECORBYLOON]

The police can use technology to tell if a 'phone is being used and whether it's on Bluetooth or no.

Unfortunately it can't tell who's using it in the car so it could be one of the passengers if there are any.