Life imprisonment for mobile phone death drivers.

Myranda

I've had to swerve onto the wrong side of the road because a driver was on my side - the thing that stood out clearly from the encounter was what appeared to be a phone in their hands ... they never stopped... 

A second different timing and two vehicles travelling at 60ish (slightly slower because we were on a bend) each would have had a head on collision - and I'd imagine the last thing I'd have known was being very angry briefly before hitting a windscreen.

Not been a fan of people driving using their phones while driving since

Dominic

I use my phone a lot whilst driving but never when moving or in traffic .........
I often pull in to a lay-by, side road ,garage forecourt or similar and catch up with my calls -I NEVER use the phone whilst on the road as such .
Despite my very clearly and consciously pulling of the road etc does this mean that if I had an accident 20 miles further down the road 30 minutes later that I am on dangerous ground ?
How does this work ?
I f I was driving to York from London and stopped at Luton to make a call would I be prosecuted for an accident in Yorkshire if my last call was 3 hours earlier ?

ThorpyFX

earwighoney said:

ThorpyFX said:

 This happened to an acquaintance of mine, she was on her phone, a drunk/druggie walked into her path and she hit him and killed him. She was sent to prison fro causing death by dangerous driving and it very nearly ruined her career. Indeed only the judges leniency and plee to her employer saved her. She has to live with this for the rest of her life.

What relevance does the victim being drunk have?  Seems pretty judgemental that a person being drunk/high negates someone using a phone in a car which they shouldn't have done.  

Seems your acquaintance got off incredibly lightly - 'having to live with it' seems like absolutely nothing.  

The relevance is as follows, she was driving down a country lane, she was lost, it was dark. It was proven that she had looked at her phone a minute before the crash. The individual possibly being drunk caused them to be in the middle of the road, in the middle of nowhere and the driver wasn't expecting them to be there.

There was no proof that she had been on her phone at the time of the crash, it was just proven that she had used her phone a minute beforehand. As far as leniency, thats for the judge to decide and they did and she went to prison. I suggest that having to live with it is horrendous for anyone, regardless of whether you agree with the sentence. This is a lovely person, not someone who would hurt a fly maliciously. 

Niallseroreilly

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306091/Daydreaming-wheel-revealed-MORE-dangerous-texting-driving.html

what should you get for daydreaming then?

jonnyburgo

When I cycled to work a lot I would ask drivers to stop messing with their phones. They fucking loved that! nowt as defensive as someone caught in the act by a little insignificant cyclist.

ThorpyFX

jonnyburgo said:

When I cycled to work a lot I would ask drivers to stop messing with their phones. They fucking loved that! nowt as defensive as someone caught in the act by a little insignificant cyclist.

They just know they are in the wrong.... 

thecolourbox

ThorpyFX said:

earwighoney said:

ThorpyFX said:

 This happened to an acquaintance of mine, she was on her phone, a drunk/druggie walked into her path and she hit him and killed him. She was sent to prison fro causing death by dangerous driving and it very nearly ruined her career. Indeed only the judges leniency and plee to her employer saved her. She has to live with this for the rest of her life.

What relevance does the victim being drunk have?  Seems pretty judgemental that a person being drunk/high negates someone using a phone in a car which they shouldn't have done.  

Seems your acquaintance got off incredibly lightly - 'having to live with it' seems like absolutely nothing.  

The relevance is as follows, she was driving down a country lane, she was lost, it was dark. It was proven that she had looked at her phone a minute before the crash. The individual possibly being drunk caused them to be in the middle of the road, in the middle of nowhere and the driver wasn't expecting them to be there.

There was no proof that she had been on her phone at the time of the crash, it was just proven that she had used her phone a minute beforehand. As far as leniency, thats for the judge to decide and they did and she went to prison. I suggest that having to live with it is horrendous for anyone, regardless of whether you agree with the sentence. This is a lovely person, not someone who would hurt a fly maliciously. 

Was she lost on a non-lit dark country lane on her phone a minute before the accident? Why would being on the phone in that situation make sense to do?

Foster

thecolourbox said:

ThorpyFX said:

earwighoney said:

ThorpyFX said:

 This happened to an acquaintance of mine, she was on her phone, a drunk/druggie walked into her path and she hit him and killed him. She was sent to prison fro causing death by dangerous driving and it very nearly ruined her career. Indeed only the judges leniency and plee to her employer saved her. She has to live with this for the rest of her life.

What relevance does the victim being drunk have?  Seems pretty judgemental that a person being drunk/high negates someone using a phone in a car which they shouldn't have done.  

Seems your acquaintance got off incredibly lightly - 'having to live with it' seems like absolutely nothing.  

The relevance is as follows, she was driving down a country lane, she was lost, it was dark. It was proven that she had looked at her phone a minute before the crash. The individual possibly being drunk caused them to be in the middle of the road, in the middle of nowhere and the driver wasn't expecting them to be there.

There was no proof that she had been on her phone at the time of the crash, it was just proven that she had used her phone a minute beforehand. As far as leniency, thats for the judge to decide and they did and she went to prison. I suggest that having to live with it is horrendous for anyone, regardless of whether you agree with the sentence. This is a lovely person, not someone who would hurt a fly maliciously. 

Was she lost on a non-lit dark country lane on her phone a minute before the accident? Why would being on the phone in that situation make sense to do?

Google maps?

ThorpyFX

thecolourbox said:

ThorpyFX said:

earwighoney said:

ThorpyFX said:

 This happened to an acquaintance of mine, she was on her phone, a drunk/druggie walked into her path and she hit him and killed him. She was sent to prison fro causing death by dangerous driving and it very nearly ruined her career. Indeed only the judges leniency and plee to her employer saved her. She has to live with this for the rest of her life.

What relevance does the victim being drunk have?  Seems pretty judgemental that a person being drunk/high negates someone using a phone in a car which they shouldn't have done.  

Seems your acquaintance got off incredibly lightly - 'having to live with it' seems like absolutely nothing.  

The relevance is as follows, she was driving down a country lane, she was lost, it was dark. It was proven that she had looked at her phone a minute before the crash. The individual possibly being drunk caused them to be in the middle of the road, in the middle of nowhere and the driver wasn't expecting them to be there.

There was no proof that she had been on her phone at the time of the crash, it was just proven that she had used her phone a minute beforehand. As far as leniency, thats for the judge to decide and they did and she went to prison. I suggest that having to live with it is horrendous for anyone, regardless of whether you agree with the sentence. This is a lovely person, not someone who would hurt a fly maliciously. 

Was she lost on a non-lit dark country lane on her phone a minute before the accident? Why would being on the phone in that situation make sense to do?

I have no idea... I’m not quite sure why I am getting questioned so vociferously here....

I wasn’t in the car with her. I offered the example up as a real world example of this mistake impacting people, in this case both the victim and the perpetrator. Her behaviour is indefensible but we’ve all done similar things (est, text, drink, put a cd in etc etc) and my example demonstrates that simple decisions can have life changing impacts. 

Chalky

None so pious as they who have never been caught...

ThePrettyDamned

ourmaninthenorth said:

While we're at it, I'd give life to: 

A) the tired behind the wheel.

the inexperienced

C) the parents with young children aboard at school run time

D) those cheeky bastards that decide to have a conversation whilst driving..

E) the lost in a strange place, who make mistakes. 

F) the simply stupid...

G) pipe and roll ups smokers...

H) those consulting or listening to a sat nat

I) those listening to the radio. 

J) lorry drivers, all lorry drivers. 

K) the old

etc etc etc....ad nauseum

Mobile phone use is so common place, most people can use them at a high level whilst asleep. Whilst driving it's just another skill one develops. 

Driving is dangerous, and was so before texting. 

I'm too busy defensively driving against children in their high powered whatever to really notice the menace of a sneaky call to the missus, or a text being read. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2016/oct/31/lorry-driver-tomasz-kroker-tracey-houghton-mobile-a34-dashcam-video

We may be able to use our phone in our sleep, but that usually doesn't put people at greatly increased risk. This guy was looking at his phone for a few seconds of scrolling to change song - which probably requires less concentration than reading or replying to a text, or eating your lunch, or doing your make up. 

Just because a lot of people do it without crashing, it doesn't make it okay, and equating it with other bad drivers doesn't make it better either - driving while texting is equally as dangerous, idiotic and even childish as going at 50 through a 30 because you like the noise your car makes when it goes vroom vroom. 

Can't a text can wait for one minute while you pull over?

I can't change the cd in my car and maintain absolute concentration on the road, so I either pull over or I turn the stereo off. It's not much to ask, is it? 

Emp_Fab

@ThorpyFX Let it go mate.  The world is rammed with 'holier than thou' folk.  I'm amazed I haven't been ostracised for confessing to having checked email when driving - by someone on their smartphone at the wheel. :-)

thecolourbox

Foster said: 

thecolourbox said:

ThorpyFX said:

earwighoney said:

ThorpyFX said:

 This happened to an acquaintance of mine, she was on her phone, a drunk/druggie walked into her path and she hit him and killed him. She was sent to prison fro causing death by dangerous driving and it very nearly ruined her career. Indeed only the judges leniency and plee to her employer saved her. She has to live with this for the rest of her life.

What relevance does the victim being drunk have?  Seems pretty judgemental that a person being drunk/high negates someone using a phone in a car which they shouldn't have done.  

Seems your acquaintance got off incredibly lightly - 'having to live with it' seems like absolutely nothing.  

The relevance is as follows, she was driving down a country lane, she was lost, it was dark. It was proven that she had looked at her phone a minute before the crash. The individual possibly being drunk caused them to be in the middle of the road, in the middle of nowhere and the driver wasn't expecting them to be there.

There was no proof that she had been on her phone at the time of the crash, it was just proven that she had used her phone a minute beforehand. As far as leniency, thats for the judge to decide and they did and she went to prison. I suggest that having to live with it is horrendous for anyone, regardless of whether you agree with the sentence. This is a lovely person, not someone who would hurt a fly maliciously. 

Was she lost on a non-lit dark country lane on her phone a minute before the accident? Why would being on the phone in that situation make sense to do?

Google maps?

They also work whilst stationery at the side of a road. I'd have thought that the check of phone records would also note the GPS position, if I use Waze in the passenger seat it tells me off in case I'm driving so it shouldn't be too hard to prove you'd stopped

ToneControl

this sort of problem is why I paid extra for a heads-up display

ThorpyFX

ToneControl said:

this sort of problem is why I paid extra for a heads-up display

Me too, they are ace!

Myranda

ourmaninthenorth said:

While we're at it, I'd give life to: 

A) the tired behind the wheel.

the inexperienced

C) the parents with young children aboard at school run time

D) those cheeky bastards that decide to have a conversation whilst driving..

E) the lost in a strange place, who make mistakes. 

F) the simply stupid...

G) pipe and roll ups smokers...

H) those consulting or listening to a sat nat

I) those listening to the radio. 

J) lorry drivers, all lorry drivers. 

K) the old

etc etc etc....ad nauseum

Mobile phone use is so common place, most people can use them at a high level whilst asleep. Whilst driving it's just another skill one develops. 

Driving is dangerous, and was so before texting. 

I'm too busy defensively driving against children in their high powered whatever to really notice the menace of a sneaky call to the missus, or a text being read. 

several of those sound needlessly dangerous while driving... yes.

Of course... the new law would be in cases where using a phone contributed to the death of a pedestrian ... so if the elderly can't actually drive safely any more and kill someone why is that "better" than the drunk.

The drunk have impaired judgement, lacking even the legal ability to agree to flap body parts at one another, but get life in prison if they run someone over... so the old, if their ageing has reduced their ability to drive safely probably had years to notice that, so knew they were incapable - in my opinion, worse... 

Emp_Fab

earwighoney

ThorpyFX said:

 I have no idea... I’m not quite sure why I am getting questioned so vociferously here....

That's because some of us can read between the lines in this example...

The 'friend' = you. 
The 'druggie/drunk' = 6 year old child/labrador puppy
Using their phone = wanking
Country lane = road by a primary school

Chalky

You don't change people's daily behaviours by putting a life sentence on a crime.  Otherwise, you'd just put a life sentence on every crime and we'd have a crimeless society.  I suspect this is lobbying at its worst, with some Daily Mail reader vote-catching thrown in.

prowla

thecolourbox said:

Foster said: 

thecolourbox said:

ThorpyFX said:

earwighoney said:

ThorpyFX said:

 This happened to an acquaintance of mine, she was on her phone, a drunk/druggie walked into her path and she hit him and killed him. She was sent to prison fro causing death by dangerous driving and it very nearly ruined her career. Indeed only the judges leniency and plee to her employer saved her. She has to live with this for the rest of her life.

What relevance does the victim being drunk have?  Seems pretty judgemental that a person being drunk/high negates someone using a phone in a car which they shouldn't have done.  

Seems your acquaintance got off incredibly lightly - 'having to live with it' seems like absolutely nothing.  

The relevance is as follows, she was driving down a country lane, she was lost, it was dark. It was proven that she had looked at her phone a minute before the crash. The individual possibly being drunk caused them to be in the middle of the road, in the middle of nowhere and the driver wasn't expecting them to be there.

There was no proof that she had been on her phone at the time of the crash, it was just proven that she had used her phone a minute beforehand. As far as leniency, thats for the judge to decide and they did and she went to prison. I suggest that having to live with it is horrendous for anyone, regardless of whether you agree with the sentence. This is a lovely person, not someone who would hurt a fly maliciously. 

Was she lost on a non-lit dark country lane on her phone a minute before the accident? Why would being on the phone in that situation make sense to do?

Google maps?

They also work whilst stationery at the side of a road. I'd have thought that the check of phone records would also note the GPS position, if I use Waze in the passenger seat it tells me off in case I'm driving so it shouldn't be too hard to prove you'd stopped

I think the law applies even if you are stopped.