Motorists are once more in the firing line over the use of mobile phones while driving:
Motorists who are caught using a hand-held mobile phone while driving will have three penalty points added to their licence, the government says.
Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander said the maximum fine would also double to £60 from 27 February.
Oh, dear, here we go again. Driving while using a mobile phone is a specific offence, yet is almost universally ignored. I see this law flouted on a daily basis as people navigate traffic with a phone balanced in the crook of their shoulder or cheerfully steering one handed. Yet:
It’s quite simple – it’s impossible to do two things at once and do them well.
It is not impossible at all. Indeed, the driving activity requires a degree of multitasking. Using a mobile phone, though, means concentrating on a remote conversation while driving. It means, if you use a hand-held, that you are liable to compromise your control of the vehicle, but the thousands of people who natter daily on the phone while commuting to work, carrying out deliveries or doing the school run tends to suggest that Douglas Alexander is wrong; it is not impossible to do two things at once as it is happening on our roads every day. If we take his qualifying comment into account; i.e. to do the two things well, then again it isn’t impossible, it depends on what you mean by “well”. For many, not crashing will suffice. At least, my observation of their dring suggests so.
Is using a phone while driving a good idea? No. During a visit to the TRL some years back to do some research into rapid response vehicles and communications, I was shown some of the early research being carried out by the TRL and RoSPA into the use of phones while driving. Although the research was in its infancy, there were some disturbing trends; that a phone call – whether the set is hand held or hands-free – can lead to a loss of concentration on the driving task for up to twenty minutes after the call is terminated. If the call is of a serious or distressing nature, then it could be for even longer.
Some people argue that a phone call is no different to talking to a passenger. However, a passenger is able to see what is going on and know – hopefully – when to shut up and let the driver concentrate on the traffic conditions. Also, a passenger is unlikely to give disturbing news during the driving task. This isn’t to say that I approve of a moratorium on the use of phones in cars – just that when I drive, my mobile is switched off. I do not have a hands-free kit in the car and do not intend to fit one because I don’t use the phone while driving. That’s my choice following my assessment of the risk. It means that on balance, I do agree with the general sentiments expressed by Mr Alexander. I do not agree with more laws or beefing up the existing ones, though. Why?
That is why in December 2003 we introduced new laws preventing motorists from driving while using a hand-held mobile.
We have seen a groundswell of support for this move.
But, worryingly, while 92% of people agree with the law, 21% of drivers admit to breaking it.
That’s why. Despite the “groundswell” of support, it is widely ignored. The police can’t keep up and so the law becomes a laughing stock. Driving while using a phone means that the driver is in danger of driving without due care and attention. By a strange coincidence, there is an offence on the statue book for just such a happenstance. It’s called driving without due care and attention. It was perfectly possible for the police to charge motorists with this offence if they compromised their driving by using a mobile phone. We didn’t need a new law and it has subsequently proved ineffective. So, despite support from the opposition, it is likely to remain ineffective. As Chris Grayling points out:
But the trouble with changes like this coming from ministers in ivory towers is that they have left our roads to be policed by speed cameras rather than real traffic officers – and so people will carry on getting away with offences like this.
Well, quite. While the mobile phone remains a “must have” fashion accessory and while people absolutely must call for the most trivial purposes, this will continue. The law remains an ass. If Mr Alexander gets his way, all he is doing is pinning a bigger tail on it…
Last week I passed a “Safety Partnership” camera van that was trying to nick people for speeding, the car in front of me had no lights on in filthy rain and spray, the car behind had fancy non-legal number plates….. police interest in these offences….. nil.
I would ban women talking in cars, have you noticed how a woman driver’s head swivels to face the passenger talking to her….. scary!, eyes seldom on the road.
This is an extension of the problem of micro-legislation; even worse than open-road speed limits.
When driving, there are several things to be done that are somewhat distracting from driving. Making a quick mobile phone call (or answering) is one of those things. So is changing radio channel, inserting a CD/tape, popping a sweet into the mouth, etc. Many of these things are not essential; nevertheless we do them and are not going to stop doing them.
The above-mentioned non-essential things are actually, in many circumstances helpful, in reducing stress, reducing inattentiveness (eg through low bood-sugar), etc.
There is one dangerous thing that is essential: cleaning accumulated salt/dirt from the windscreen with squirt. During the first wipe or two, visibility is likely to be much reduced; however, overall safety is improved.
As is obviously understood by most drivers, one does these things at the right time, not at exactly the wrong time.
It is also the case that accidents do happen: and sometimes due to inattentiveness; sometimes due to driving too fast for the conditions; sometimes from the coincidence of 2 minor errors; sometimes from other forms of bad luck. It is just not possible to stop them all.
However, the micro-legislators don’t get it at all.
Best regards
There is and was a perfectly good law to deal with using a mobile phone while driving – it’s still used by the police on a multitude of other occasions – it’s called “driving without due care and attention” and as set out here is part of the careless driving legislation. The anti-mobile phone legislation is a prime example of “legislation as PR”. It’s just an indication that the government is “doing something” (no matter how useless and unnecessary) rather than just letting the police (when they feel like it) enforcing the existing law which is and was perfectly adequate to deal with the scourge of mobile phoning while driving.