United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
If people rely on driving for their work or independence, they should not be using their phones while driving. It's not hard. A friend of mine is a train driver and you can imagine that being caught using your phone in that job is instant dismissal. His solution is to turn the phone off and put it in his bag, therefore there can be no temptation to use the phone and absolute proof in the case of an incident that phone usage wasn't part of it. If a motorist can't resist the temptation to use their phone, they should be doing the same.
The overwhelming majority of people 'caught' by Mikey seem to be using social media, not taking urgent work calls.
It is still dangerous to use the phone in traffic jams, because what phone users do while texting or doing Instagram is to be looking down while using their peripheral vision to see if traffic is moving, or even less. So they see a movement and move off, not having seen the pedestrian crossing through the gaps. I've witnessed a crash caused by such a distracted driver - albeit it was in Houston - the phone user next to us heard a car horn from behind and without looking just went and hit the car in front. Had there been someone crossing the road in front they would have been crushed.
Being in a traffic jam is still actively driving. Mikey might not be a hero, but calling him a "tool of the oppression of the state" is severely overegging the pudding, when to avoid such "oppression" all you have to do is not use your phone and pay attention to driving.
I’m not discussing whether it’s hard to avoid texting while driving or anything like that. Obviously, it’s not hard. Phones are a distraction to drivers, and distractions are dangerous while driving.
With all of that said, however, I believe that The laws of society should be just. It wasn’t so long ago that people were hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. While that’s clearly a more extreme punishment, my point simply is that I’m interested only in whether the punishment, loss of one’s livelihood, fits the crime - using a phone while completely stopped. I haven’t yet been convinced of that.
Under the law, if you pull into a lay-by, stop the car, turn off the engine, remove the key, and leave the car to take a phone call, you can still be charged and found guilty of using a phone “while driving”. If you don’t think that is an absurd overreach, then honestly, I have nothing more to discuss with you - we would have such radically different values that we could never reach consensus. Edit: The source for this claim is from CPS legal guidance which states: "...a person might still be driving even when they turned off the engine and got out of the car", but admits that it would be "unlikely" to be prosecuted, but this is just one example demonstrating how selective enforcement means that we are all capable of having our lives completely destroyed by the state, all under colour of law, should they choose it.
There are countless things which could distract drivers in stopped traffic and we do not regulate most of them. We don’t ban listening to any kind of media, we don’t ban conversation within the vehicle, we don’t ban the use of two-way communication radios. But if you’re stopped in traffic, listening to Spotify and a song comes on that you’re not a fan of and you dare to press “skip”? That’s you half-way to losing your job if it’s your unlucky day.
The only question I have is: Is that justice? That’s the only point I want to discuss.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-mobile-phones
“However, although the House of Lords in Pinner v Everett held that a person might still be driving even when they turned off the engine and got out of the car it is unlikely, other than in exceptional circumstances, to be appropriate to use section 41D to prosecute any person who in these circumstances made a phone call or accessed the internet. See Public Interest.”
The scenario involved someone who was suspected of being drunk driving but only after they had got out the car to have a look at their licence plate in the presence of the police.
It’s legal precedent. The decisions made in that way become law, and that ruling has been used several times since, and it could be used again, to convict someone in the exact manner I described.
It’s just an example, anyways. The point of it was to make you think about how arbitrary enforcement of the law could be used to oppress an individual who had done nothing wrong.
I am far more interested in having you address my actual argument itself, as a whole. I’m very open to changing my perspective if you can explain why using a handheld phone while stuck in a traffic jam is more dangerous than using a phone handsfree while driving.
I think you got me confused with another commenter. Also I believe I’ve already answered your question (comment with RoSPA in it).
Sorry, at this point I have no way of knowing who has written what, because the "Context" link is broken so I can't tell what any comment is in response to.
No, that’s not correct. It’s entirely about determining when you are, or not, driving. That’s why the course went to the House of Lords for a determination. This precedent establishes that “driving” can include when you’ve stopped and gotten out of the car, assuming that you intend to continue your journey.
See my previous comment: are you going to actually answer my question? Whether or not you think my statements are unreliable doesn’t matter.
You can answer that simple question without having to rely on anything I have stated.
Happy to restate the question:
Is using a handheld phone while stopped and stuck in traffic more dangerous than using a phone handsfree while driving at 60 miles an hour?
And now you’re running off, because you know fine well what the answer is and what that entails.
Instead of admitting that you’re wrong and reconsidering your perspective, you’re just hiding in deeper and deeper levels of denial to protect your ego.
Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable, but the only lasting resolution is to reject your beliefs that do not stand up to scrutiny.
It’s easier in the short term to take the path which preserves your ego, but you’ll always be wrong, and it gets harder and harder to deny reality.
Every time you reject the truth it gets harder and harder for you to admit that you were wrong all along.
Unlikely doesn’t mean it can’t happen. It also says “exceptional circumstances”. That’s two caveats that explicitly confirm that they can do EXACTLY what I wrote, if it suits them.
Very clearly I have read it more carefully than you have, considering you’re continuing to misunderstand it.
Are you deflecting to arguing minutiae because you’re unable to refute my actual argument?
I have read it. I have also read several cases which cite it. Citations of legal precedent aren't specific, they don’t have to have the original circumstances in common with the original case to use it as a precedent. Any ruling made in such a case can be used as precedent, for example, in British Pregnancy Advocacy Service v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 2019, Pinner v Everett was cited in reference to how the phrase “first day of the pregnancy” should be interpreted, because Pinner v Everett contains precedent about how natural language should be interpreted.
It is completely understandable that you don’t know how legal precedent works, but I’d politely suggest that you should avoid getting into arguments about it on the internet, at least not without properly learning more about it first.
Has Mikey gotten anybody in trouble who's pulled into a lay-by, stopped the car, turned off the engine, removed the key, and left the car to take a phone call? If not, I don't see what your beef is with him.
Remember that bit in my comment about “all I want to discuss is whether or not that is justice”?
I don’t have a “beef” with Mikey, he’s somewhat neutral as far as I’m concerned. Why do you care about that in comparison to the real question I asked? Surely if there’s injustice in our legal system that’s more important than whether or not some random internet weirdo likes some other internet weirdo?
Don't be absurd. There is exactly one case where this was discussed and it was a suspected drink driver who had been observed to be driving and in motion (look up the case here: https://vlex.co.uk/vid/pinner-v-everett-793596681). There are exactly 0 prosecutions for driving offences for people who weren't actually in their car and driving when the alleged offence took place.
Also two way radios are banned if they are hand held. The rules are the same for two way radios - they must be hands-free.
Nope, you’re wrong about radios.
“Most drivers are aware that it’s an offence to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving. This also applies to any “interactive communications device”, but an exemption applies for two way radios”
Also, there’s more than one case where Pinner v Everett has been used as precedent, you can see on the very page that you linked that the precedent has been cited in 131 cases, and the original link I shared has CPS reference it and state that it can use it as precedent for mobile phone use, and I think that the Crown Prosecution Service might know a bit more than we do about prosecution than we do. But sure, by all means, keep arguing with me about it in the comments.
Well I stand corrected on 2 way radios (one of those differences between Manx and English law - I know first hand that 2 way radios have to be hands-free here).
Have any of those Pinner v Everett cases been for mobile phone use, or similar? Or has it all been to do with drink driving - certainly the list of citations that site gives for free were all about failure to provide a sample. Drink driving is a completely different kettle of fish because you can prove an offence on someone not in a car if you've observed them driving five minutes ago, because you remain over the limit for a considerable period of time. Given how many driving offences are prosecuted, 131 cases since 1969 (over 50 years ago) is a vanishingly tiny proportion of cases.
Lots of things "can" happen but a prosecution of someone for using a mobile phone in a layby with the keys out the ignition is has about as likely as my underwear teleporting one foot to the left unexpectedly.
Why are you expecting me to look through hundreds of citations to find a case about mobile phone use when the CPS outright states that it could be used for that purpose? If you want to argue it then get in touch with them.
Also, 131 citations is quite a lot. There are around 11,000 rulings from the House of Lords, and maybe only 2000 or so of the rulings have more than 130 citations.
Anyways, all of that aside - is using a handheld phone while stuck in traffic more dangerous than using a handsfree phone while travelling at 60 miles an hour?
That I don't know. However, using a hand held phone in a traffic jam is certainly hazardous, as my Houston ramming incident demonstrated. (CyclingMikey has also several videoed incidents of people driving very badly in traffic jams while using hand held phones, putting vulnerable road users such as pedestrians at risk).
Personally I think all mobile phone use behind the wheel should be banned including hands-free, but legislation is often the art of the possible and lines have to be drawn somewhere (e.g. why is the speed limit in urban areas 30 mph, not 31 or 35 or 25? At some point someone has to draw that line. Enforcability would also be a factor, and when considering a change in the law, and it would be very hard to enforce a ban on hands free phone use).
Hands-free phone calls have been shown to cause additional risk, much more so than just talking to a passenger (there are a number of reasons why this is so, some of it is the brutal compression from the codec reducing intelligibility added to the limited audio bandwidth also reducing intelligibility, which means more mental effort must be spent on a phone call than just talking to a passenger). Using a hands free phone at 60 mph might be less likely to be a factor in a crash than going on Instagram heads down on a hand held phone in a traffic jam, but risk = probability x consequences and the consequences of having a distraction incident at 60 mph will be more severe even if the probability is lower.
I think we don't take driving as seriously as we should, we put vulnerable 3rd party road users in a lot of danger by not devoting our full attention to driving. Everyone Mikey catches quite honestly deserves what they got - if they can't take driving seriously they need to have their driving licences taken away. If you can't resist the temptation to use your phone turn the damn thing off and put it in your bag in the back seat.
There's not much here that I really disagree with - don't mistake my position on this issue, I'm not trying to argue that it's okay to use phones while driving.
The main thing really bothering me is that you very quickly brushed past the fact that if the law was truly designed to maximize safety, they would outlaw the use of handsfree phones.
Doesn't that bother you? The knowledge that the law, ostensibly for public safety, has been compromised without a really compelling reason?
And the "enforcability" argument is really weak, IMO - there are countless laws on the books which are difficult to enforce, some much moreso than the use of handsfree devices while driving, and it hasn't stopped those from being implemented and prosecuted.
The real reason, and it's the same reason as to why 2-way radios are allowed, is because it would negatively impact businesses, and business is far more important to the UK government than the lives of it's citizens.
No, two way radios are by and large used by the police, ambulance and fire (and certainly when it comes to the police, they like to exempt themselves from legislation they find inconvenient - e.g. for the longest time, motorcycle visor tints were illegal unless you were the police in which case they were just fine!)
Also, alas, politics/legislation is the art of the possible, and perfect is the enemy of the good. Doing nothing because it would be politically impossible to ban all phone use while driving is a worse state of affairs than at least banning handheld phone usage. Of course it bothers me as I'm frequently a vulnerable road user (I own several motorcycles, and do all my local journeys on a pushbike or walk, and I've been hit by drivers whose standard of observation has been piss poor) but at the same time I have to recognise that at least a ban on handheld phone use will reduce my chance of getting hit, even if (at the moment) all phone usage isn't banned, and so while it is not perfect it is better than nothing. And more power to Mikey for dobbing people in.
If the intent was to exempt emergency services then they would have exempted emergency services.
Two way radios are primarily used by taxi firms.
And your last point is weak, there are infinite possibilities we have between the status quo and nothing at all. Clearly I’m not arguing that there should be a free for all on phone use while driving.
Very few taxi firms, the practise has largely died out. I can't tell you the last time I got into a taxi with a handheld radio in it. One taxi firm here still has a large dipole on the roof of their building, but AFAIK they no longer use it.