Mobile use changes

[Phil xxkr]

I am sure most people are aware of changes coming but not perhaps effective today and very wide ranging : this is an article from Which. 

"It now covers ‘any device capable of interactive communication, even if that functionality is not enabled at the time’. This also covers devices that are in ‘airplane’ or ‘flight’ mode. Here’s a list of the phone uses that fall foul of the new law: Illuminating the screen Checking the time Checking notifications Unlocking the device Making, receiving, or rejecting a telephone or internet based call Sending, receiving or uploading oral or written content Sending, receiving or uploading a photo or video Utilising camera, video, or sound recording Drafting any text Accessing any stored data such as documents, books, audio files, photos, videos, films, playlists, notes or messages Accessing an app Accessing the internet

Read more: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2022/03/changes-to-mobile-phone-driving-laws-come-into-force-this-week/ - Which?

The "any device" is interesting as this will now cover smar****chs which I personally find very useful 🤔

[agent_dess]

What is unclear to me..... does answering/rejecting calls mean no touching phone are or you not allowed to use the handsfree steering controls either?

Draconian rules..  Funny how the Gov dishing them out broke all the rules during lockdown 🤬😡

[Herbie]

The Black Belt Barrister explains it very well:

 

 

[Phil xxkr]

4 hours ago, Herbie said:

The Black Belt Barrister explains it very well:

 

 

Excellent, but still raises questions Herbs. 

[Bluemarlin]

From what I understand it's pretty straightforward. Don't use any such device, for anything, whilst holding it in your hand, with the exception of making a mobile payment whilst stationary, e.g at a fast food drive through. Regardless of reason, or relative safety, any such usage (except the one stated) will automatically be an offence.

Said device can however be used whilst fixed in a cradle. There is no automatic offence for such usage,  although driving without due care and attention etc can be applied if appropriate, in the same way that it can be applied when operating a car stereo, aircon, etc.

Not sure why there's any confusion.

[Linas.P]

53 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

although driving without due care and attention driving without due care and attention

And this is my biggest issue with all individual charges for phone use etc. 

There is already an offence called "driving without due care and attention" or worse brother of it "dangerous driving" and it cover all scenarios, no matter how where and when you get into accident, if you were driving without due care and attention, then you are at fault. Why create additional over the top, single use offences for using smartphone, phone, smart watch, something reminding an electronic device, fake radio, child's toy or hell knows what. These very specific laws always felt to me like "old fashioned" people could not get grips of modern world, so they decided to single out some modern gadget or technology, because they don't understand it. After all it is all the same - it does not matter if you talk on the phone or you don't, of if you drink coffee, or smoke, or eat sandwich... if that was the cause of your accident, then you were simply driving without due care and attention.

Now just think for a second - what do you think is more distracting, eating a sandwich which is dripping tuna juice, smoking cigarette with high temperature ash falling between your legs, or just holding mobile phone next to your ear in automatic car whilst cruising on motorway? I am not endorsing any, but I just feel there is some weird obsession with mobile phones when it comes to creating highly specific single use laws for no good reason whatsoever. And yes - I kind of I imply that as long as it doesn't cause accident, nobody should be bothered about it, we are all adults and all should be mindful of our actions. Overly details, single purpose laws like this just feels like "nanny state". 

Other note - in my experience, when driving it isn't "the holding" of the device which is distracting, it is usually the conversation itself i.e. you can be using fully hands free device (say via car integration) and you can be just as distracted if not more if you are asked complex question, or you been told very sad or very happy news. In short the conversation is what is distracting and it has nothing to do with the device which is used. Besides this is kind of slippery slope, because I argue that accepting, rejecting or ending the call with the buttons on the steering wheels is just as distracting as using the phone itself. In summary, it seems to me this was pointless law, for offence which was misunderstood by people who don't understand the technology and impact of it. They are trying to fight the device, for the issue which is linked to persons ability to drive due to the conversation which is taking place... it can't be more wrong.

[Bluemarlin]

I get your point Linas, but I suppose the inherent distraction of using a mobile phone whilst both holding it and driving is considered potentially more dangerous than other things. After all, it's a lot more distracting to use a phone than it is to eat a sandwich or smoke a cigarette.

If we were to take your suggestion of just applying driving without due and care and attention, or dangerous driving, rather than penalising potentially dangerous activities, then why bother with speeding or drink driving laws?

The point being that the intention is to prohibit potentially dangerous things, in order to reduce accidents, injuries and death, rather than simply apportion blame after someone's been killed.

[Linas.P]

Same here - I see your point, but I view it as personal responsibility first and foremost. I would not fight speeding (completely arbitrary by the way) or drink driving limit (completely personal) either - if one can't handle fast car, or decide when they are not capable of driving themselves they will get punished by "careless or dangerous driving". Let people be responsible for their actions rather than babysitting them - that is my point.

As well I disagree with premise that using the phone is more dangerous or distracting than eating sandwich or smoking. I am not boasting, but I find it harder to eat sandwich (especially if it is sort of crumbly) than it is too hold the phone. As well I been in the car when my friend crashed it because cigarette ash burned his balls... was low speed crash in parking lot, but still... I have nearly driven of the roads because of hot coffee leaked through the side of the lid... Sure I would not do that now (silly teen times), but my point - any distraction in the car is potentially dangerous, having kids or attractive woman in the car are dangerous... so I don't understand and I don't appreciate this obsession of legislating just for phone.

[Bluemarlin]

Fair points with regards to clumsiness when eating drinking or smoking. In fact I often used to get a pannini for my drive to work and, although I preferred the bacon and egg one, I always bought the melted cheese and marimite, as that wouldn't fall out of the sandwich.

I'd also assume the same rules apply to an attractive woman as they do mobile phones. It's ok to have one in the car, you're just not allowed to manhandle it while driving.

I would take issue with the "let people take responsibility for their actions" bit though. The reason being that it's  not just them that faces punishment if they mess up, but potentially also an innocent victim. Like I said, in this case it seems to be about preventing disaster, rather than punishing it after the fact.

Look at this way. If you're flying home from your holidays, would you prefer that it was illegal for the pilot to be texting his girfriend to arrange a date whilst landing, or that he be left responsible for his actions and only be punished if he messed up?

[Linas.P]

As I said - I see the opposite point, but when it comes to phones the rules feels arbitrary to me, as well I don't think they are proportionate. Another very important point is that holding the phone is not the part which is distracting, the conversation itself is - should they ban the hands free in cars then? Clearly they were designed by somebody who is unable to handle the phone, have not tried it whilst driving and does not understand the issue. Again I agree it is distraction, but not any more than any other distraction, so why only focus on them. Besides it seems like police in this case was found wrong by court and just doubled down on it, just to show that they can. It was not like previous law was insufficient, but now they as well want to make sure that filming accident from the car will be included. Note as well, that many rules applies even when you stationary, which I find particularly egregious and unnecessary. And finally, we don't have issue with traffic deaths in this country despite what "safe roads" activists would like to make out of it.

Sure - any deaths are preferably avoided, but side effect of vaccine killed more people last year than road traffic accidents, yet nobody is talking about that. What I mean is that things don't exist in isolation - road accidents are bad and deaths are bad, yet I still think that personal responsibility should be the way to prevent them, rather then pre-emptive penalties for certain behaviour which may or may not cause an accident.  

[Bluemarlin]

You're almost right Linas, they were clearly designed for somebody who is unable to handle the phone whilst driving. Same as most safety laws, which are designed around the least able/competent.

I don't think they doubled down on it, so much as closed an unforseen loophole. That said, you're right, it is arbitrary, as other things can be just as distracting. Don't worry though Linas, I'm sure they'll eventually come around to your view of fairness, and will be after our sandwiches, coffees and cigararettes next 😉

[Phil xxkr]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

And this is my biggest issue with all individual charges for phone use etc. 

There is already an offence called "driving without due care and attention" or worse brother of it "dangerous driving" and it cover all scenarios, no matter how where and when you get into accident, if you were driving without due care and attention, then you are at fault. Why create additional over the top, single use offences for using smartphone, phone, smart watch, something reminding an electronic device, fake radio, child's toy or hell knows what. These very specific laws always felt to me like "old fashioned" people could not get grips of modern world, so they decided to single out some modern gadget or technology, because they don't understand it. After all it is all the same - it does not matter if you talk on the phone or you don't, of if you drink coffee, or smoke, or eat sandwich... if that was the cause of your accident, then you were simply driving without due care and attention.

Now just think for a second - what do you think is more distracting, eating a sandwich which is dripping tuna juice, smoking cigarette with high temperature ash falling between your legs, or just holding mobile phone next to your ear in automatic car whilst cruising on motorway? I am not endorsing any, but I just feel there is some weird obsession with mobile phones when it comes to creating highly specific single use laws for no good reason whatsoever. And yes - I kind of I imply that as long as it doesn't cause accident, nobody should be bothered about it, we are all adults and all should be mindful of our actions. Overly details, single purpose laws like this just feels like "nanny state". 

Other note - in my experience, when driving it isn't "the holding" of the device which is distracting, it is usually the conversation itself i.e. you can be using fully hands free device (say via car integration) and you can be just as distracted if not more if you are asked complex question, or you been told very sad or very happy news. In short the conversation is what is distracting and it has nothing to do with the device which is used. Besides this is kind of slippery slope, because I argue that accepting, rejecting or ending the call with the buttons on the steering wheels is just as distracting as using the phone itself. In summary, it seems to me this was pointless law, for offence which was misunderstood by people who don't understand the technology and impact of it. They are trying to fight the device, for the issue which is linked to persons ability to drive due to the conversation which is taking place... it can't be more wrong.

Bravo! 

[Linas.P]

11 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

You're almost right Linas, they were clearly designed for somebody who is unable to handle the phone whilst driving. Same as most safety laws, which are designed around the least able/competent.

I don't think they doubled down on it, so much as closed an unforseen loophole. That said, you're right, it is arbitrary, as other things can be just as distracting. Don't worry though Linas, I'm sure they'll eventually come around to your view of fairness, and will be after our sandwiches, coffees and cigararettes next 😉

I rather see them focusing on real issue like driver training, making the roads themselves better and safer etc. But maybe seeing somebody getting fined for weaving between the lanes, because they are trying to drink the coffee whilst smoking would put the smile on my face.   

[Bluemarlin]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

I rather see them focusing on real issue like driver training, making the roads themselves better and safer etc. But maybe seeing somebody getting fined for weaving between the lanes, because they are trying to drink the coffee whilst smoking would put the smile on my face.   

Be reasonable Linas. Do you know how difficult it is to text whilst smoking and drinking a coffee, let alone trying to stick to a lane 😀

[Linas.P]

9 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Do you know how difficult it is to text whilst smoking and drinking a coffee

Exactly...

[Bluemarlin]

This thread has really got me thinking, and it's clear that things have been approached the wrong way. We're trying to manage problems instead of providing solutions; and that's the responsibility of the car manufacturers.

To their credit, they solved the dilemma of trying to comfortably drink a coffee by doing away with a gear stick and giving us automatic cars. Now they just need to move the steering mechanism to the ceiling,  attached to one's head, thus leaving both hands free to drink, text, or even use an ipad.

[Linas.P]

The driving automation is doing this, although our laws and actual roads are way behind to allow this to work properly. The automation is not difficult if the use cases being automated are fewer and simpler, because our roads are overcomplicated and frankly there are a lot of things on the roads which shouldn't be there it becomes much harder to automate. Basically we need to simplify the roads to automate the driving, significantly reduce the number of signs in use, unify the road design and application of rules etc. and caser could be fully autonomous even with current tech. But if we want to automate driving in current conditions (I would describe it as minefield), then this will take at least until 2050, or whenever general artificial intelligence is created. 

[Mincey]

15 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

To their credit, they solved the dilemma of trying to comfortably drink a coffee by doing away with a gear stick and giving us automatic cars. Now they just need to move the steering mechanism to the ceiling,  attached to one's head, thus leaving both hands free to drink, text, or even use an ipad.

That's what your knees are for, isn't it? 😁