Life imprisonment for mobile phone death drivers.

Chalky

As it stops you making calls or connecting to the internet, are you ok if you put your phone in Aeroplane Mode?

fields5069

Chalky said:

As it stops you making calls or connecting to the internet, are you ok if you put your phone in Aeroplane Mode?

Do you mean - is that an ideal way to use your phone and get around the possibility of being caught? If so, why is that even a question?

Aeroplane mode switches off radio, but if you have downloaded maps then satnav would still work I think.

Dodge

Rocker said:

Why use maps on your mobile when a legal Satnav can be bought very cheaply?

Nobody condones drink driving so why condone the use of mobile phones while driving? If a driving ban for mobile phone usage while driving or imprisonment as described by the OP was the normal result of such behaviour, the practice would cease.

To be fair, even some of the modern sat navs take more 'mental processing' to use than a decent mobile phone with voice recognition.

I use my phone for sat nav all the time, but I never check email, send texts etc. when I'm in the car, stationary or otherwise.

What annoys me with the sat navs are the fuckwits who stick it on the windscreen right in front of the drivers eyes.  You've got to wonder....

ICBM

gavin_axecaster said:

^When the levels were introduced the average beer was about 3.5% ABV, so the standard was 5 units, or 2.5 pints.
Now the average abv of beer has increased most online guides say 2 pints of "regular strength" beer.

Admittedly I only weigh about nine and a half stone so the volume of blood to dilute it in is much lower than a lot of people, but if I have two pints of regular strength beer I would very definitely feel unfit to drive. I notice a slight effect with one pint.

Anyone who thinks they can safely drive after two pints is wrong in my opinion. It only takes something - not even your fault - unexpected to happen and with slightly impaired judgement and reactions you could be in very serious trouble.

I will admit I used to think a pint or a single 330ml bottle was OK if I wasn't driving for a couple of hours, but now that Scotland has dropped the limit to 50mg I won't even do that. It's simply much easier not to be tempted.

Likewise on the original subject I won't use my phone unless the car was actually stopped, and not at traffic lights either unless it's something like roadworks where I know I won't be going anywhere for several minutes and I've turned the engine off anyway. And I know even that is still technically illegal if the car is on the normal roadway.

Snap

ICBM said:

Anyone who thinks they can safely drive after two pints is wrong in my opinion.

You don't know that though.

Alcohol effect is related to muscle mass and water content of the body, amongst other things. There's good research to support it. This is why different people react to the same level of alcohol differently.

It is quite possible for someone who has had several pints to have no funcitonal impairment, and to have low alcohol blood levels.

The law sets a bar that hopefully works for everyone, and reduces risk. What that bar is is the debate. I'd argue that it should be as near to zero as is practical.

crunchman

Personally, I'd reduce the limit to 50mg per 100ml rather than 80mg.

Having said that, sometimes I'll have one drink of something moderate strength if I'm having a meal at a pub that's 5 minutes away from home on roads I know.  I'm a little different from @ICBM in that I'm currently the wrong side of 15 stone in weight though - it will have less effect on someone my size.

I would never drink any alcohol if I'm going to be driving on a long journey, or on roads I don't know.

I don't think there would be much point in going below 50mg per 100ml though.  At that point, I don't think people are significantly impaired.

fields5069

I'm not sure if it's still the case in Kenya, but why not try something they do or did there? Drink at much as you like and get in your car and drive, but if you're caught then you're banned for life.

CabbageCat

ICBM said:

Anyone who thinks they can safely drive after two pints is wrong in my opinion.

Anyone who thinks they can safely drive full stop is wrong in my opinion. Driving is dangerous. If we were genuinely concerned about removing the risk of tragedy we would never get behind the wheel. I think we just do what we can to make it that, in the event of something rotten happening, we can point the finger at someone else.

randella

fields5069 said:

I'm not sure if it's still the case in Kenya, but why not try something they do or did there? Drink at much as you like and get in your car and drive, but if you're caught then you're banned for life.

We'll try that in your city first yeah? 

fields5069

randella said:

fields5069 said:

I'm not sure if it's still the case in Kenya, but why not try something they do or did there? Drink at much as you like and get in your car and drive, but if you're caught then you're banned for life.

We'll try that in your city first yeah? 

Yep sounds good to me. The law doesn't say that everyone should have a skinful and drive, but if you're stopped and you're over the limit, goodnight Vienna. Sounds ideal. I know it's sexist, but the Kenyan friend I had said it was no problem, all the wives can drive so he just has to call his to come and pick him up when he's had enough.

CabbageCat

fields5069 said:

I'm not sure if it's still the case in Kenya, but why not try something they do or did there? Drink at much as you like and get in your car and drive, but if you're caught then you're banned for life.

How is that different from here?

fields5069

CabbageCat said:

fields5069 said:

I'm not sure if it's still the case in Kenya, but why not try something they do or did there? Drink at much as you like and get in your car and drive, but if you're caught then you're banned for life.

How is that different from here?

Ah. Maybe I'm not up on the law. There's a life driving ban for being over the limit while driving? If so then fantastic!

CabbageCat

fields5069 said:

CabbageCat said:

fields5069 said:

I'm not sure if it's still the case in Kenya, but why not try something they do or did there? Drink at much as you like and get in your car and drive, but if you're caught then you're banned for life.

How is that different from here?

Ah. Maybe I'm not up on the law. There's a life driving ban for being over the limit while driving? If so then fantastic!

I was more getting at the "drink as much as you like but you will be punished if you get caught". But yeah, you can lose your license forever for the most serious offenses.

fields5069

CabbageCat said:

fields5069 said:

CabbageCat said:

fields5069 said:

I'm not sure if it's still the case in Kenya, but why not try something they do or did there? Drink at much as you like and get in your car and drive, but if you're caught then you're banned for life.

How is that different from here?

Ah. Maybe I'm not up on the law. There's a life driving ban for being over the limit while driving? If so then fantastic!

I was more getting at the "drink as much as you like but you will be punished if you get caught". But yeah, you can lose your license forever for the most serious offenses.

Yeah but in Kenya it's zero tolerance, which would probably never work in this country as people try to get off by claiming they just ate 40 loaves of bread, or that their mate spiked their drink.

strtdv

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.nature.com/articles/srep25651

That should answer most of your questions.
Basically, your brain has very clever systems of stopping you from crashing in a variety of distracting situations (kids screaming in the back, being angry, having a conversation, listening to the satnav etc), but those systems specifically break down with sensorimotor distractions such as using your phone, trying to find something in the glove compartment etc.

I'm with @CabbageCat on this one, driving is intrinsically dangerous, so people who use their phone are being criminally reckless IMO (not saying I've never done it, but I am saying if I caused an injury or accident while doing it I would expect the law to be very harsh)

ourmaninthenorth

strtdv said:

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.nature.com/articles/srep25651

That should answer most of your questions.
Basically, your brain has very clever systems of stopping you from crashing in a variety of distracting situations (kids screaming in the back, being angry, having a conversation, listening to the satnav etc), but those systems specifically break down with sensorimotor distractions such as using your phone, trying to find something in the glove compartment etc.

I'm with @CabbageCat on this one, driving is intrinsically dangerous, so people who use their phone are being criminally reckless IMO (not saying I've never done it, but I am saying if I caused an injury or accident while doing it I would expect the law to be very harsh)

Thanks for your precis...I think.

LoFi

snakemanStoo said:

Blaendulais said:

Still though you can drive after 2 pints of lager.  FFS

I believe that on average 1 pint of lager is 2 units of alcohol, and that is the limit.

2 pint would be 4 units, therefore double the limit.

The limit is 80mg/100ml blood - for an average person, this equates to 4 units for a man or 3 for a woman.

A unit of alcohol is 10ml, so a pint of 4% lager is 2.27 units, 4.8% (Stella, Kronenbourg) is 2.7, etc. (The standard 2-unit "pint" as originally defined by the Govt is 3.6% - not many around like that these days).

As above, because of differences in metabolism/body mass/etc., some people will blow clean after 6 pints, some will be over the limit after 1.

(Personally, I think if you need to do the maths to work out whether you're over, it's probably best to err on the side of caution).

axisus

Emp_Fab said:

What is also an eye-opener is that if you fiddle with your phone once whilst driving, then put it away, you may think you've 'got away with it' because you didn't have an accident or the police didn't catch you doing it, but you are definitely not in the clear.  If you are involved in an accident later on in your journey and there is any suspicion that you may not have been paying full attention, then the police will check your network provider for any evidence you were using your mobile at any point in your journey this far, and if there is evidence (such as you quickly checking your email at the lights earlier on), you will likely be prosecuted on the basis that you were also playing with your phone at the time of the accident.  This has happened.  People are in prison now because of this.

That can't hold up in court. I have on many occasions got a text from Mrs A whilst driving, on those occasions (rare so usually of some importance), I drive to a lay-by, switch off the engine and read the message. That is 100% legal. 

mynamesnotbob

axisus said:

Emp_Fab said:

What is also an eye-opener is that if you fiddle with your phone once whilst driving, then put it away, you may think you've 'got away with it' because you didn't have an accident or the police didn't catch you doing it, but you are definitely not in the clear.  If you are involved in an accident later on in your journey and there is any suspicion that you may not have been paying full attention, then the police will check your network provider for any evidence you were using your mobile at any point in your journey this far, and if there is evidence (such as you quickly checking your email at the lights earlier on), you will likely be prosecuted on the basis that you were also playing with your phone at the time of the accident.  This has happened.  People are in prison now because of this.

That can't hold up in court. I have on many occasions got a text from Mrs A whilst driving, on those occasions (rare so usually of some importance), I drive to a lay-by, switch off the engine and read the message. That is 100% legal. 

Genuinely - where is the case law on this, or at least the documented court cases where access on the trip (no matter how far apart) has been used to convict.

In the example above, the network does not know when you read the text, or how you read the text - just that you received a text. Many cars read out the texts, phones will read them out, you may have stopped, passenger could have checked etc etc. If they are purely using network activity to prove negligence then this is easily discredited.

For instance I had a two hour journey, the phone was in my bag and in do not disturb - no texts read or calls taken. However my phone replied to 4 texts saying I could not respond as I was driving, my sat nav made 4 google searches finding locations (POI does google search) initiated by voice, it downloaded some maps, 5 apps updated. All of this with my phone in the bag behind me.

Just saying the network knows your phone did something doesn't show if a person or machine initiated it, so genuinely interested in the cases where this was used for a conviction and the evidence given.

For what it's worth I am not saying to use your phone. I am very anti phone when driving, never do it, ,and hate to see people texting etc when driving and think the penalties should be stricter for both interacting with devices or drink driving

rlw

I'm ambivalent about the life sentence idea.  No-one sets out to have an accident and even when it's the result of the most stupid piece of driving, the end result is very far from what was planned.  It is impossible to predict what might happen in most cases when you lose control although the loss of control might be predictable if you are driving badly enough.

Unlike someone going out armed with a knife and stabbing someone else.  A knife is carried for a purpose and the action of stabbing someone with it is premeditated insofar as it was picked up in the first place, and the result of stabbing someone is reasonably predictable.

When knife murderers regularly get life sentences, then I might feel better about bad drivers getting the same.

Also, should the loss of life in a car accident be as significant as it is?  For example, I had a pretty bad accident last year when I understeered into the front wheel and bumper of a slow moving milk tanker on a very rural bit of road.  The tanker was a mess, my car was a write off and me and mrsrlw spent a few hours in the emergency department.  

However, no-one was badly injured or killed, there was nothing to suggest dangerous driving and everything was settled very quickly.  I got to attend a driving awareness course, which was interesting, and that was it.

Had that tanker been a 1975 Mini, I would imagine that all the occupants would be dead or injured and I would have been facing all manner of charges and, possibly, looking at a jail sentence.  And yet because no-one else was injured and it was a property only insurance claim, I wasn't charged but, surely, as the standard of driving would have been exactly the same, this is a bit daft.

Perhaps drivers should be charged more often in fact, or points picked up for silly offences like running into the back of another car.  Totally avoidable and no different, really, from running into a pedestrian, but one will get you nicked and the other, probably, won't.

Perhaps violent criminals should get real life sentences for their pre-considered actions while drivers still get the time off etc etc.

Rant sort of over.