It’s useless new law time again in the UK.
From today it will be an offence to drive a vehicle on a public road while using a mobile telephone (or ‘cellphone’ for our North American readers).
A complete waste of time. Which is not to say that driving a vehicle while using a mobile telephone certainly can be dangerous, so is driving a car while unwrapping a sandwich, tying shoelaces, fiddling with the buttons on the radio or playing the accordion. Whatever the object of distraction, the point is that the motorist is driving without due care and attention and since that is already an offence, surely no elaboration is required.
If the police are unable or unwilling to prosecute motorists for extant offences then what on earth is the point of merely enacting more?
Really this all smacks of the the short-term ‘something-must-be-done’ mentality and the impulse which requires the demonisation of objects rather than the uses to which those objects are put.
The UK media are blitzing the issue as a part of which I have been drafted in as libertarian voice-du-jour. I have not long returned from the BBC studios in Central London where I got my oar in on the Jeremy Vine show and, this evening, I will adding my piece to a similar debate on Classic Gold radio.
For anyone interested enough to listen in or phone-in, the show will be streamed live on-line at just after 8.00pm UK time.
We’ve had similar laws popping up around the joint here in the US as well. They tend to be requirements to use “hands-free” phones (with headsets), but the distracting part isn’t the yakking, its the dialing and answering, which hands-free doesn’t help with.
Believe me, talking, eating, and playing with the stereo are the least of the distractions drivers have. I recently had to pull over because I could no longer see the road through tears of laughter during a radio show on the topic of sex while driving.
Numerous aspects of the topic were explored, including bench v. bucket seats, various positions, and one fellow who managed to heave a couple of quarters at a tollboth attendant while, shall we say, fully engaged. I can assure you that there is no limit to the double entendres when you combine sex and driving (“hang on, honey, I’m about to pay the toll!” being the least of them.)
David wrote …
“Whatever the object of distraction, the point is that the motorist is driving without due care and attention and since that is already an offence, surely no elaboration is required”
Yes, this is it exactly and I’ve long felt the same way. I did have a disturbing thought once though – is a motorist under the influence of alcohol (or drugs, or driving with a paper bag over his head) not also simply “driving without due care and attention”? If not, why not? From your analysis it would seem you don’t want to ticket a person who’s using a cell phone but in a way that doesn’t negatively impact his driving, do you apply the same logic to a drunken person pulled over for some unrelated offense (tail light out, for example) but whose drunkenness was not discernable from his actual driving?
YogSothoth,
I would like to be able to reply to the effect that our law-framers skilfully discriminated here between two states of impairment of attentiveness, that of the mobile user amounting only to absence while nattering. I suspect, though, that no such finesse was involved. A simple opportunity for the state to extend its penal reach was at the bottom of it.
Well as I understand it the legislation prevents people from talking using the convetional “Hand to ear” and “ear to shoulder” techniques for holding the phone.
Hand to ear is prohibited because it means that if you need to use that hand suddenly (an emergency change of gear for instance) you have your phone in the way. Twiddling the radio however means you don’t have anything in your hand so you can grip the stick. Pernickity I know but it’s still applicable.
The “shoulder cocked” reasoning is based on the facts that 1) with your head cocked it is harder to concentrate on things on the horizon and
2) that the body’s natural reaction to having a phone slip out from that position is to follow it down in an attempt to keep it in place, effectively drawing your gaze from the road (it’s the same effect as throwing a ball filled with money at someone who has a banana in their hands, the reflex isn’t the sane thing to do ie: drop the banana take the money, but is instead to retain your grip on one object and try to catch the other anyway, leading to failure most of the time).
The fact is you can still use a Hands Free kit driving. The law doesn’t stop you from answering a call by pressing a button on the mobile phone to turn on your speakerphone.
Hong Kong had a major problem with people driving with mobile phones so a similar law is in place there. No one’s complained and most just considered it a valid excuse to get a Hands Free kit (allowing them to look far cooler hehe).
On no less than 3 occasions I’ve been in a taxi where the driver has complained that some idiot taking the wrong lane on a roundabout “Was on his bleedin’ Mobile” (why is it all taxi drivers, even in Colchester are cockney?!)
Well said on air, David; you were splendid, as usual!!
I’ve nearly been hit three times by people on cell phones while either driving or walking here in the states. I hate the fucking things.
Johnlouis, by your logic eating and drinking should also be outlawed in cars, as they both require that you have something in your hand, just as hand to ear mobile yakking does.
All that hands-free crap doesn’t address the two activities that are most distracting – dialing and answering, both of which require you to look away from the road to your phone and find the right fiddly little buttons.
I don’t buy it.
Voice activated dialling aids, er, dialling quite a bit for me and my headset has a button just under my chin on the microphone which is easy to press to accept incoming calls.
Still, even using handsfree kits is discouraged and according to that “wonderful” free paper Metro actually illegal as well, if unenforcable. It is surely only a matter of time before talking to fellow occupants of the car is made illegal (distracting as it is) and automatic cars are made compulsory thanks to the fact that you no longer need to remove your hands from the steering wheel…
The reason why it’s a separate law is because it can be easily proved, by examining the records from the mobile phone company.
Eating/Drinking is at the discretion of the Officer involved, this penalty carries an on-the-spot fine so its going to be enforced and you’ll look pretty damn silly in court trying to contest it when your call is played back to you.
Its like the speed cameras really, good old capitalism at work, using financial incentives to force people to obey laws 🙂
P.S. Can you fix the tab sequence on the anti-spam number ?
I have to mildly disagree with the idea that the conversation is not distracting. Any conversation is diverting attention from driving, be it with an adult passenger, the kids in the back, or someone on the phone. I would also think that conversing on the phone requires MORE concentration than with someone in the car with you, as there are no other contextual clues (hand gestures, subtle inflection) to keep you in the conversation. Yes, looking down to dial the phone or answer a call (two things that have been eliminated on my particular cheapy phone by voice activation, btw) are diversions, like using the radio, picking up a sandwich or drink, or any other non-driving activity. But it’s the long term distraction of people thinking about their conversations that I think presents far more of an opportunity for accidents. It’s one of those cases where you’ve got a 95% distraction for 30 seconds, or a 50% distraction for 5 minutes.
I still think these laws banning phones are stupid. The ones that allow hands-free use still don’t address what I personally think is the big problem, and in any case, they’re a perfect case of people saying “there oughta be a law…”, which in my experience is a sure sign that there certainly ought not be any such law.
“Its like the speed cameras really, good old capitalism at work, using financial incentives to force people to obey laws :)”
Yes good point, Ian, I think this is likely to become yet another ‘speed camera’ type revenue-raising farrago.
Since it is really just another state-confiscation scheme it has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.
Driving with a mobile phone will mean moving between large numbers of mobile phone receivers. Would it be possible for the government to demand information on whos phone did this backed up with CCTV of roads to see how many people were in cars?
I just like to point out the fallacy above where someone starts a post with “Well as I understand it the legislation prevents people from..”
Legislation prevents nothing. Witness the numbers in prison for consensual, victimless crimes.
No law that a populace is not obeying en masse can actually be enforced. Or rather, it’s enforcement does not impact behaviour to any appreciable level. Witness the incidence of speeding in nations where it is below the natural driving speed for roads.
Laws may threaten punishment, and it’s attendant disruption of your life, but they do not ultimately compel behaviour. No one is stigmatized socially for speeding, nor for smoking a joint.
The nanny state control freaks can just go take a leap; I’d much rather have a lower auto insurance premium for not having a cell phone than any such law as the one referenced in this story.
“Any moving violations? What model car? Own a cell phone?”
I’m sure the actuaries will have no troulbe pricing it in short order.
“Any moving violations? What model car? Own a cell phone?”
I’m sure the actuaries will have no troulbe pricing it in short order.
So currently over 78% of the general population have a mobile phone and over 90% in many groups.
I use a handsfree, I would object to my insurance rising because of this. How about you?
Conservative estimate, 1 in 4 drivers in london are on their phones during the rush hour, morning and evening. Holding the phone to their ear they have reduced visibility and reduced car control. Just for a start think about indicating, it’s not possible to indicate and turn the wheel and select the correct gear one handed without loosing control of the car. You can put down a sandwich, drink whatever, a cigarette doesn’t fill your hand, but people are extremely reluctant to break off conversations mid flow. Hence you get people turning without warning and without looking.
I ride a bike to work each day and everyday I see at least half a dozen people driving dangerously phone in hand, if fear of punishment can reduce that number at all then I’ll be ecstatic.