You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
2nd conviction cut their thumbs off with a bandsaw
1st conviction receive a fine and someone elses thumbs
Maybe a STW collective 'campaign' of written contact to PCCs and Chief Constables etc? A bit like Cycling UK do where they have a template for you to use. It's a start. (thinking emoji)
whether it would actually be safer to allow the use of phones as long as they were in a dash mounted cradle.
We already do?
Make it 7 points so if you are caught twice in 5 years it’s an automatic 1 year ban
That's not how it works. 12 points is a minimum six month ban. You'd only get a year ban if a previous ban was taken into account.
No hardship please allowed.tough
Again, that's not how it works. Exceptional Hardship is only applied in, well, exceptional cases and would be offset by considerably higher fines. Hardship in and of itself is explicitly barred from affecting a court decision. Successfully securing an Exceptional Hardship plea is really difficult despite what the gutter press would have us believe.
My punishment would be an instant 12 month ban, no excuses, no caveats.
Still not how it works.
Company I work for puts cameras in lorry cabs, just need to have them by default in cars - sell it as an insurance reducer!
the black box saw that his phone was unlocked while driving
Colour me sceptical.
Couple of lines of code to ensure that the car would stop running if you don’t have your phone on the reader.
"I don't have a phone."
no car brand will add something like this
I think it's a legal requirement now for new cars to have the ability to talk natively to a black box?
They should have an inbuilt ‘I am not working as you a driving’ safety mechanism.
How's that going to work for the passengers?
For a lot of the drivers skills on display out there, DoucheMusks fully autonomous uber taxi things can’t come quickly enough.
We don't have driverless trains and they're on rails. Driverless cars is up there with Father Christmas and the tooth fairy.
On the subject of truck drivers
I saw one a while back with a paperback book on the go.
What about, if you provide evidence of another person using a phone while driving... I imagine you’d see a steep drop off in illegal phone use
How? By filming them on your phone as you drive past?
There is no money to fund the police to actually police it.
Make the fine enough to cover the costs and problem solved.
Honestly I would be pleased if it was an active revenue raiser. UK drivers pay £1.2 billion a year* on parking fines to private companies. Given current rates of phone use, and the potential for harm, I would want total fines for phone use to be 3 or 4 times that at least.
The annual police budget is £17 billion*. So it pays for a big chunk of that bill.
*Numbers plucked from Google without fact-checking
IMHO any crime with a chosen intent should have at least two zeros added to the current fine, complete and final loss of the vehicle and a 5 year ban.
How's that going to work for someone who has no money? £5/fortnight until you're dead?
Sentencing isn't the issue. Enforcement is the issue.
Stuff any hardship plea.
Still not how it works.
2nd conviction would bring a serious charge with a large fine and something like 8 points
3rd conviction even larger fine, 3 year ban, and even confiscation of the vehicle if they are the owner(or increase fine/ban if they aren’t
4th conviction. 1 month prison sentence plus fine and 2 year ban.
Almost how it works already. We're getting there, woo!
Mobile phone use when driving is a pain. It used to be the case that you could see someone ahead and think "they're pissed." Nowadays, it's "they're either drunk or on the phone." There is no need for it and no excuse, even if you're driving something from the 1970s you can still sucker a phone cradle to the windscreen to use as a satnav. But knee-jerk reactions squealing about punitive measures two steps away from "hanging's too good for them" is not helpful. What's needed isn't the punishment, it's the fear of being caught. Our full-on robot chubbie for lucrative speed cameras has had a knock-on effect on actual police just being out and about.
Driving without a seatbelt today would be unthinkable. Lighting a fag in the cinema would be unthinkable. Having a gallon of lager and driving home would (largely) be unthinkable. These aren't just legal pressures, they're social pressures. We need to get to the same point with phones - someone who is driving picks up their phone, the passenger goes "put that down, you nob."
Make it 7 points so if you are caught twice in 5 years it’s an automatic 1 year ban .
6 points (as it currently is) already achieves this - although its 2x in 3yrs = 6 months ban because that's the totting up rules.
No hardship please allowed.tough .
Its not hardship its EXCEPTIONAL hardship which the law allows to be considered as part of totting up proceedings. Contrary to the impression you will get in places like this, it is not at all easy to argue (if it was it wouldn't be exceptional). The Crown could probably do with appealing some of the more questionable cases though to keep the standard high.
Make it a minimum of £700 fine , double for second offence in 5 years.
We don't have minimum fines in this country. The maximum fine for using a mobile phone is £2500. The fixed penalty is £200, if you are caught twice in 3 yrs you will need to go to court anyway and so will likely get a bigger fine (and in E&W +prosecution costs etc).
Allow a kick back of 10% of the fine to anyone leading to a successful conviction of phone use. They did it with drink driving back in the 90s.
Did they? I'm not sure we want people arguing in court that "CycleCameraGuy" is only reporting them for the money or to encourage "SkintCameraGuy" to distort/exagerate evidence to lead to more convictions.
Ask insurance companies to double the insurance of people who refuse to fit a tamper proof camera that records the driver while the engine is running. Remove the ” no I wasn’t” to prove you weren’t by showing me the video. The tech is so cheap now. Insurance void if you point the camera elsewhere.
Insurance protects "innocent" third parties - voiding it seems like a bad idea. Even if it was just the comprehensive bit of the policy - nobody believes they are going to have an accident so at that moment in time would not matter.
Small fine/points is ok on a first offender, as long as nobody is harmed.
So if you admit it and have a clean license (or 3 points max) you will likely be offered £200 + 6pts
2nd conviction would bring a serious charge with a large fine and something like 8 points
A second offence in 3yrs will go to court, you will tot up and be banned for 6 months. The court will almost always fine you significantly more than £200.
3rd conviction even larger fine, 3 year ban, and even confiscation of the vehicle if they are the owner(or increase fine/ban if they aren’t
A 3rd conviction IS likely to result in a ban. (If the first offence was dealt with by fixed penalty it will NOT be recorded as a conviction so if the points are off you license the court will not know about it unless you went to court - the "deal" with fixed penalties is if you pay quickly the state won't record a conviction and it is mostly forgotten after 4 yrs).
4th conviction. 1 month prison sentence plus fine and 2 year ban.
Sending people to prison for 1 month - almost regardless of what its for is generally regarded by everyone "in the system" as a really bad use of resources. It won't have escaped your notice that prisons are bursting at the seems. People who go to prison often become unemployable - so not only do you and I need to pay for them to be housed for a month but the state ends up subsidising them potentially for the rest of their lives.
One issue is that people "with points" on their license believe it is "normal" when in fact the majority of drivers have clean licenses. Perhaps if there was a bit more social stigma around points it would make job applications, car rental etc a little bit more awkward.
The problem, as with most traffic offences, is not the penalty regime - its that the chances of detection are low and if you did it once last week and got away with it then twice this week seems ok, an four times next week and still no action so its just normal. You need cops and they need to be motivated to catch people. And stop sending people on driver improvement courses for stuff that required an intentional action.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5190126-nob-on-a-bike
A timely Mumsnet thread. To my very pleasant suprise, most commenters there (aside from the original poster) agree with us!
I note lots of people on this thread seem to have opinions/ideas on how various technologies could help address this problem, one primarily created by technology and human behaviours,
I'd respectfully suggest that while there might be a 'tech' angle to consider, the key bit is still the behaviour aspect. add all the black boxes and sensors you like (and with them more potential points of failure?) but fundamentally its the conduct of the autonomous meat sack in the driver's seat that needs adjustment.
Almost every time I venture outside the behaviour aspect on display seems to be a lost cause, you just have to remain vigilant in the douche heavy environment.
Car manufactures (Volvo) are starting to have internal facing cameras that detect it. It'll take time for this to come into fruition and across the board, but it'll happen. Nothing will work until then. And another decade of 'phone use at the wheel' - while not great - is so insignificant on a population-level timescale that it really doesn't matter. It matters to us because we're living through it, but in x number of years it won't be a thing any more (not least because cars will - very likely - be operating quite autonomously).
Change takes a while. We always want everything to happen immediately - the world just doesn't work like that. Legislation and planning is forward-looking. Eg all this green energy etc stuff and national infrastructure (HS2, ETC etc) we're doing now isn't for us, it's for future generations.
Wife’s nephew got a warning phone call off his insurers because his mate had been using his phone to choose some music in the car, and the black box saw that his phone was unlocked while driving – the tech does exist.
I don’t get why black boxes aren’t more widespread.
My daughter's mate has this. She can't sat-nav on her phone while driving as the black box app won't allow it.
I can see teens getting 2 phones, an el-cheapo with the black-box app and their main phone for satnav/music/crossy-road
some new cars can detect if you arent paying attention to the road. thats a catch all for tiredness, phone use, playing with the stereo, tying to spank the kid behind you...
pretty much every car in the last 5+ years (so probably approaching half the cars driven regularly) has carplay/android auto. if people actually used the technology presented to them, maps, texts (read out for you) etc can be done hands free via your car. phone never needs to leave my pocket so no faffing with cradles that detect the phone and so on.
I'd love to see mandatory dashcams including a view of the driver. any accident, footage reviewed, and if you are on your phone, insurance refuses to pay out (3rd party remains, obviously). a few high profile tabloid sob stories about being out of pocket five figures might scare the rest of the population into complying.
Change takes a while. We always want everything to happen immediately – the world just doesn’t work like that. Legislation and planning is forward-looking. Eg all this green energy etc stuff and national infrastructure (HS2, ETC etc) we’re doing now isn’t for us, it’s for future generations.
Thing is, the laws on mobile use while driving were first passed in 2003, that's 21 years ago. So in the space of about one generation the square root of sweet FA has been achieved despite people having the foresight in the early 2000's to try and legislate against the very situation we find ourselves living with today. how many future generations should we expect to pass before this relatively simple issue is finally gripped?
Patience, for all it's virtues, can be a bit overrated at times.
Even if it was technologically possible, how would it affect passengers?
It wouldn’t be difficult to build solutions. We already have detection by cameras from outside a car so think how much easier it would if we had cameras in the car itself. Whole can of worms on privacy but it’s not a technology implementation issue.
How? By filming them on your phone as you drive past?
No obviously...
If you Think long and hard about it, I'm sure you could think of some examples where you don't need to be driving a car yourself to be able to film a driver on their phone....
the black box saw that his phone was unlocked while driving
Colour me sceptical
It's true this happens...
My OH has fannied around with car insurance for her daughter, so that SHE has the black box in her name (which is linked to my OHs phone)
Her daughter was driving the car, my OH was on HER phone, and the insurance company wrote saying if this happens again (phone use whilst driving) they'll cancel the policy..
DrP
Thing is, the laws on mobile use while driving were first passed in 2003, that’s 21 years ago. So in the space of about one generation the square root of sweet FA has been achieved despite people having the foresight in the early 2000’s to try and legislate against the very situation we find ourselves living with today. how many future generations should we expect to pass before this relatively simple issue is finally gripped?
With the incoming tech, the car will safely pull itself over and/or log the incident for insurance purposes. It is coming. Expect it to be prevalent in 10-15 years (which is acceptable/reasonable)
If so, I hope the next gen of electric cars can divert some electrons via a prong built into the seat to alert the driver more…
If you Think long and hard about it, I’m sure you could think of some examples where you don’t need to be driving a car yourself to be able to film a driver on their phone….
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Point is, if you're monetising joe public to collect evidence of other folk using phones, you'll be encouraging people at least as much as dissuading them. It's not a solution, it's just displacing the problem.
It’s true this happens…
My OH has fannied around with car insurance for her daughter, so that SHE has the black box in her name (which is linked to my OHs phone)
Her daughter was driving the car, my OH was on HER phone, and the insurance company wrote saying if this happens again (phone use whilst driving) they’ll cancel the policy..
Ah, insurance fraud. (-:
I didn't realise there was an app these days, mia culpa. When one of my apprentices passed his test it was an actual physical box installed in the car.
Point is, if you’re monetising joe public to collect evidence of other folk using phones, you’ll be encouraging people at least as much as dissuading them. It’s not a solution, it’s just displacing the problem.
I suppose if you truly are hard of thinking you may think it's a good idea to take a video on your phone and hand it to the police which clearly incriminates you for the same offence..I suggest that wouldn't be the norm...
But I also appreciate you just like to argue and disagree with people on here so fill your boots..
I suggest that wouldn’t be the norm…
I suggest you overestimate people.
you just like to argue and disagree with people
No I don't.
(-:
With the incoming tech, the car will safely pull itself over and/or log the incident for insurance purposes. It is coming. Expect it to be prevalent in 10-15 years (which is acceptable/reasonable)
I'm going to rank this alongside the near constant promises over the last 20 years that self-driving cars will be commonplace "within the next three years".
IIRC this is the accident that shows the family dog dead on the carriageway which always sticks with me. It was posted 2 years ago, people are still on phones. Humans are a failed experiment.
The issue is lack of resources to catch and prosecute them. Do that, enforce the 12 point ban, the message will get across.
In queuing traffic, a helmet cam to get the car reg and the drivers face can then be sent to the Police video sites for review.
Though personally, a small targeted drone missile is also an option. Collateral damage isn't an issue, anyone using their phone whilst driving clearly doesn't give a shit about their passengers.
Cars will be confiscated if they are not insured
I like the idea of phones being confiscated if they are used by a driver.
simsterFull Member
It took years and years of government advertising to change attitudes and behaviour towards drink drinking and seat bet use. A long term advertising campaign could help educate and ‘shame’ the public in to adopting new behaviours.
This is the only real solution to this problem. Make it socially unacceptable.
I have a black box policy which detects phone use and downscores my driving if/when it detects use. Well, I did, after a year of close to perfect scoring they've decided I no longer need the black box. Which is a shame as I quite liked the assessment of my driving. Scary to think how crap you'd have to be in order to get some sort of penalty though. I was typically scored around 90/100 and the threshold for any warning/penalty was 30 IIRC.
Cougar2, we do have driverless trains ??
And driverless cars in US cities.
Cougar2, we do have driverless trains ??
We have the DLR which was specifically built with driverless operation in mind (unlike the London Underground which has been built in various stages from the mid 1860's and with all manner of upgrades and extensions over the decades, the whole thing is a right mish-mash of tech).
However the DLR always requires an operator on board who can take on the driver role at any time - in fact they quite routinely do. The idea that the whole thing can drive itself all day is simply not true.
There are a couple of small self-contained metro systems like the Gatwick monorail shuttle that works driverless but that's a very simple system.
Driverless trains is another thing like driverless cars. The tech could potentially do most of it most of the time but not all of it all of the time. Plus it'd be a wildly expensive upgrade for very limited returns, it's simply not economically viable, Much cheaper to just pay the drivers what they want then to try getting rid of drivers in favour of full auto running.
Christ, that video ^ is a hard watch. Surely watching that would be enough to convince most sane people...
theres never going to be enough police to police the rules effectively - just isnt going to happen. so...
1. a centralised and widely publicised method of uploading video footage of offenders which is processed by AI so that police forces dot get overwhelmed processing it. at the point every other driver, cyclist, pedestrian and ring doorbell is a possible hidden policeman, the risk of being caught becomes real
2. get caught with a phone in your hand and get a 1 month ban with absolutely no exceptions, 2nd offence its a year.
3. professional drivers or delivery drivers - company gets fined a meaningful percentage of their turnover (same as GDPR) this deals with courier companies operating in a way that requires their drivers to drive dangerously in order to make minimum wage
4. same all goes for other "minor" infringements - close passes, speeding, zigzags etc - short ban with no exceptions for everyone.
Ah, insurance fraud. (-:
Yes. Yes it is. And I've tried politely to help her avoid this. But... Independent women be independent,even if it's daft, effing stupid, and illegal.
Sigh.
DrP
I’m late to the party here but are @Cougar and @Cougar2 the same person???
Yes. See the 'issues' sticky. You might need to go back a page or two.
And driverless cars in US cities.
No they don't. It's like three cities and they have automated cars, not autonomous ones. They still require a driver.
Regardless, most of us don't live in the US. Many American cities were manufactured with cars in mind. It's one thing navigating a grid system, another entirely hacking around a British city or a scabby single track road with passing places that we can't yet trust satnavs not to send us down. My car has an automatic parallel park feature, in the 2-3 years I've had it I think it's worked once.
Proper funding for traffic cops and then issue them all with a tiny hammer. Caught using your phone, hammer time! for your phone and a fine and points for you.
I don't agree with 'switch off' tech. I use my phone for voice navigation and playing music through Tidal. It sits in the glovebox or in the drinks holder thingy and I'm never tempted to use it. I ignore most calls and messages when I'm at home, let alone whilst driving.
I see it quite a bit, mainly around town and quite a lot seem to be young women around their early 20s, or tradies in their vans, it's not just phones either, electronic devices are as bad, i think every delivery driver you see is veering about as they check their drop off list and directions rather than the road.
It's just one of many issues on cars, i see a fair few that aren't MoT'd or Taxed, and i'd hazard a guess there's a lot without licenses, fake plates, etc as well, factor in a lot of old folk who shouldn't be near a car anymoe and it's not an easy drive these days!
Caught using your phone, hammer time! for your phone and a fine and points for you.
This is policy in France I believe, for satnavs with speed camera warnings. They make you drive over it. Might be different now in the days of phones for navigation, I don't know.
I don’t agree with ‘switch off’ tech. I use my phone for voice navigation and playing music through Tidal. It sits in the glovebox or in the drinks holder thingy and I’m never tempted to use it. I ignore most calls and messages when I’m at home, let alone whilst driving.
I don't disagree, I have Android Auto for mapping, Spotify, audiobooks, podcasts. It'll read out text messages and ask me if I want to (verbally) send a reply. None of this requires me to touch the handset, it's little different from changing radio channels. But I'll wager that almost everyone will justify their usage to themselves whatever that usage happens to be. It's a bit like speeding - the speed I'm going is correct, anyone faster is a menace and anyone slower is under the feet and going to cause an accident.
For all the cries of "that's not how it works"
Again. that's not how it works.. "
It doesn't work and isn't working so rather than pissing on other people's chips because their ideas are different to current UK road traffic sentencing guidelines then maybe the current points and fines do need addressing.
The crux of it is though not enough police tasked with actively seeking out those on the phone , overload cps system to process any increase in potential prosecution and courts without capacity to hear lots of trials regarding phone use.
Maybe a different system with the option of taking points , or on the spot ( say within 3 days) fine of a week's wage, increase to a month wage on repeat offence would be a self financing deterrent.
And please let's not start with , but that's not how it works. Simply because it doesn't work. Phone use is at an all time high , and is only going to get worse as the millennials who have lived umbically attached to a phone get decent jobs and drive more
After several very close calls with drivers I bought some cameras from Chillitech a couple of months ago. I use them on my commute and have submited reports via Operation Snap of three drivers who drove very dangerously around me. Results are two warning letters sent and one Notice of Intended Prosecution.
I have not reported any phone drivers yet but see lots of them and am considering doing so. I would need to change my front camera from bar to helmet mount though. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel
And please let’s not start with , but that’s not how it works. Simply because it doesn’t work.
If 6 points and a several hundred quid fine isn't deterring people then increasing that penalty isn't going to make the blindest bit of difference. Crushing the phone as Funky suggested might I guess.
I bet if you asked drivers what the penalty was, most wouldn't know. Advertising that more widely could be a promising start, rather than crying to bring back the birch.
Can smoking and vaping be stopped too please, and people talking, and middle lane drivers, and those that stick just below the speed limit
The thing I don't get is why these people have phones to their ears. I drive a Dacia...I can make calls between talking to it.....it's a ****ing Dacia.....I bought it because it was the cheapest car I could buy, surely there cars do this. I mean my 20 year-old Skoda it replaced didn't but most cars are much newer.
Scrolling through tikity toks in stationary traffic is obviously tougher to get rid of.
No they don’t. It’s like three cities and they have automated cars, not autonomous ones. They still require a driver.
Not that I want to be picky, but I literally sat in the back of a Waymo in Phoenix last week and was driven from one place to another without anyone else in the car. Just because it's US-only, it doesn't mean that your statement that "we'll never have driverless cars" isn't wrong.
If 6 points and a several hundred quid fine isn’t deterring people then increasing that penalty isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference.
As has already been said the problem's not really the sanctions, if people are flouting the law with impunity and getting away with it very few sanctions are going to work. The key to the problem is enforcement.
6 points & a several hundred quid fine would soon stop most people if it were applied each time they used their phones whilst driving.
All of the cars I have had this century have had hands free phone options, my latest car a Kia proceed wont move without me putting the seat belt on which is bloody annoying if i need to move it 2 m on the drive . It wouldnt be much of a step to apply similar tech to phones? .Internal cameras and phone detected = no start
It’s just one of many issues on cars, i see a fair few that aren’t MoT’d or Taxed,
im interested in how you know this since tax discs were abolished and there has never been a requirement to display an mot
Thing is, the laws on mobile use while driving were first passed in 2003
Front seat belts were a required fitting in cars 55 years ago (those of a certain age will remember "Clunk-Click"). Mandatory wearing of those front seat belts didn't happen until around 40 years ago (rear seat belts weren't a required fitting until a few years later)
The take-up of front seat belt wearing was comparatively widespread and rapid (90%), rear seat belts less so
Soon after the law came into effect in 1983, 90% of car drivers and front-seat passengers were observed to be wearing seat belts. These high rates of seat belt wearing in front-seats of cars have been sustained since that time.
When seatbelt wearing became compulsory for all rear-seat occupants in 1991, there was an immediate increase from 10% to 40% in observed seat belt wearing rates. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thirty-years-of-seatbelt-safety
Is it generational, or do people perceive rear seat belt use and ignoring mobile phones as less necessary?
im interested in how you know this since tax discs were abolished and there has never been a requirement to display an mot
Lots of time on their hands? https://www.gov.uk/get-vehicle-information-from-dvla 🙂
For all the cries of “that’s not how it works”
Again. that’s not how it works.. ”It doesn’t work and isn’t working so rather than pissing on other people’s chips because their ideas are different to current UK road traffic sentencing guidelines then maybe the current points and fines do need addressing.
but I think you are missing the point as the media do with every offence which they are upset about - murders still happen even with life sentences, and even in countries with the death penalty, yet you even go on to highlight the real issues:
The crux of it is though not enough police tasked with actively seeking out those on the phone , overload cps system to process any increase in potential prosecution and courts without capacity to hear lots of trials regarding phone use.
Because you are absolutely right - forget sentencing, that’s not the main issue - risk of getting caught is the problem.
Phone use is at an all time high , and is only going to get worse as the millennials who have lived umbically attached to a phone get decent jobs and drive more
hey boomer, you know millennials are almost all in their 30s or 40s now. In theory gen Z and gen Alpha have learned to drive in an era where IF CAUGHT they have to retake their test so should have had a massive incentive to break the habit when driving…. But it come back to the risk of getting caught.
there is a fine balance between being “self financing” and being a “sales target” but until a politicians family member or come b-list celebrity is mown down by a phone driver don’t expect anyone to see it as a priority.
We managed a cultural change around drink driving. Could the same be done for phone use while driving? I remember a lot of hard hitting adverts making drinking and driving antisocial.
The phone problem is wider than a car thing, lots of people of all ages are so atached to their phones that safety is secondary to their phone habit. This is why I think that a technological way of preventing drivers from using phones is the only way to prevent them offending.
Maybe the phone should report the driver if they access any other app when driving other than music and navigation?
Just a couple of weeks ago I was travelling in my mates truck and the young lady in front was obviously texting whilst driving. She failed to spot the brake lights of the concrete wagon slowing to allow another driver out of a junction and ploughed straight into the back of the lorry. We stopped to inform the lorry driver what we had witnessed and the other driver was adamant that we were lying. I sincerely hope that the police can check her phone records to prove her misuse of her phone.
I sincerely hope that the police can check her phone records to prove her misuse of her phone.
Disclaimer: I don't know how much time/effort/resources the police put into things like this or if it depends on the severity of the crash (ie a dented bumper vs a fatality).
But imagine if car crashes were treated with the same rigour that literally any other mode of transport gets. Even a near miss in aviation or rail gets a board of investigation, a report, suggestions on safety improvements.
Cars, it seems to be mostly a case of just letting the insurance deal with it all and a driver using the phone (or driving with a slightly - but not obviously - defective vehicle) may never be proved one way or the other.
Just because it’s US-only, it doesn’t mean that your statement that “we’ll never have driverless cars” isn’t wrong.
Then I've totally been lied to by the Internet. Apologies.
Phoenix is the Grid System, is it not? That's a whole different proposition from driving round a UK city centre, or a single track country lane with passing places.
In theory gen Z and gen Alpha have learned to drive
Gen Alpha won't have for a few years yet.
Maybe the phone should report the driver if they access any other app when driving other than music and navigation?
How do you differentiate between driver and passenger?
and those that stick just below the speed limit
It is a limit not an absolute. People shouldn't always be traveling dead on 30, 40 or whatever. Has it been raining, is it overly bright etc. People seeing limits as the speed you must travel or as a target is part of the issue. I'll also happily sit at 50mph on a dual carriageway as it will save me money.
im interested in how you know this since tax discs were abolished and there has never been a requirement to display an mot
As someone else stated, take the number of suspicious cars, check on DVLA site, it tells you if taxed or MoT'd, it's not that rare unfortunately, we had a van around here reported numerous times for dangerous loads and no MoT/Tax, nothing ever happened, well until it went down an A road and the rear axle separated from the vehicle and it overturned, the police managed to send someone out for that.
How do you differentiate between driver and passenger?
Some phones are able to unlock themselves with facial recognition, why not have facial recognition on a driver camera -which detects whether certain functions on the phone owned by the driver is being used and disables call/ texting functions. Most modern cars have been pairing phone to car in background for over a decade so its not too far fetched.
People seeing limits as the speed you must travel or as a target is part of the issue.
Not this again.
You should drive at or near the speed limit unless you have reason not to. Wet roads for example, as you say. Hesitancy is a major fail on your test if you don't.
Some phones are able to unlock themselves with facial recognition, why not have facial recognition on a driver camera -which detects whether certain functions on the phone owned by the driver is being used and disables call/ texting functions.
What if the passenger is using the driver's phone?
What if the passenger is using the driver’s phone?
Facial recognition for the passenger also - it can't be that hard... Volvo have had some sort of face/behaviour nodding off avoidance technology available for a decade, I don't how it works but am pretty sure it doesn't wait until you start snoring. Car detects driver phone usage = phone is blocked, no emotion.
As someone else stated, take the number of suspicious cars, check on DVLA site,
Do people act have so little to do that they can be bothered to memorise a number plate to check later. Perhaps they are using their phone to take a photo of the vehicle 🙂
I mean, it can't be that hard... but would need phone manufacturers to work with car companies. That shouldn't be too bad, there's only two main phone brands - and car companies, well rather than providing completely unnecessary performance and needless leather lined luxury tat could divert some of the billions spent in development to implement a feature which would benefit everyone... as we should all surely aim to be killed by an inattentive driver a little less.
The logic pathway could go something like 1. a. phone detects its in a car through gps, motion and is disabled or b. car detects phone present and pings it to disable features - unless: 2. phone is paired with car and limited features available through wheel controls and infotainment, calls and texts etc. blocked: 3. Phone works only in car if stationary and engine off.
You should drive at or near the speed limit unless you have reason not to. Wet roads for example
Does this include single lanes with national limits? Explains a lot I suppose