UK: New Drivers Caught Using a Phone Will Lose Their License (bbc.com) 180
Under new rules in England, Scotland and Wales, drivers caught using a phone within two years of passing their test will have their license revoked. BBC reports: Penalties for using a phone at the wheel double from March 1 to six points and a 200 British pound fine. New drivers who get six points or more must retake their practical and theory. More experienced drivers can be banned if they get 12 points in three years. Can I check social media or texts if I'm queuing in traffic or stopped at traffic lights? No -- a hand held phone cannot be used, even if stopped at lights. Texting and scrolling social media (even if the phone is mounted on a hands-free holder) is distracting and dangerous. It doesn't come under the handheld mobile phone law but the police may decide to charge you with a number of other offenses. Can I use my phone to listen to music, play podcasts or watch video clips? You can't watch video clips -- not even if your phone is mounted in a hands-free holder. You can use your phone to listen to music and podcasts but only if your phone is in a hands-free holder or connected by Bluetooth. However, just as you can be distracted by the noise of a car radio, if it affects your ability to drive safely, you could still be prosecuted by the police. Can I use my phone's sat nav? Yes -- as long as the phone is mounted in a hands-free holder. If it's in your hands, it's illegal. However, if you are distracted by the sat nav and it affects your ability to drive safely, you could still be prosecuted by the police.
Reasonable (Score:3)
Those rules sound pretty reasonable. If you use it in a way that takes your attention away from the road, it's forbidden. If it doesn't, it's OK.
Re:Reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about where you live, but here there are rules for how big and close they can be to a road, where they can and can't be placed, design limitations (no flashing lights, etc) and so on precisely for that reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Given most (?) cars have only one occupant, the majority of people the billboard is aimed at is the driver.
to do that, it becomes a distraction.
It was posted more in response to the ludicrous suggestion that if you SatNav was a distraction you could still be prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
It specifically says SatNav is allowed. But just like speed limits you still have a responsibility of your own. You can drive the speed limit and still be prosecuted if your speed is excessive for the current conditions. And if you use the navigation in a way or at a time when it is dangerous you're still responsible for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about your SatNav, but mine specifically states every time it turns on that it should NOT be operated while actually driving. If you're cruising along in the city, eyes on the satnav to look for the road you need, or maybe setting it up to search for your next destination, and you hit someone - yes, you get prosecuted. You were not exercising due care and caution while piloting what is essentially a ground-based ballistic missile.
Re: (Score:2)
And road signs, too!
When I'm in an area with a lot of signs and other visual clutter, I slow down to give my brain more time to process everything. It's the law [brainscape.com].
Re: (Score:3)
"So, we should see advertising billboards along roads removed because they are specifically designed to grab peoples attention."
Well, I don't know if it comes from an European-level regulation, but that's certainly the case here in Spain.
Billboards Already Restricted (Score:2)
So, we should see advertising billboards along roads removed because they are specifically designed to grab peoples attention.
What billboards? The UK already has strict rules limiting the placement of billboards along motorways and majors roads for exactly this reason which is why so see so few.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. We really SHOULD ban billboards near public roads. Would save a great many lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually texting on a phone should be considered reckless driving. No need for a new law, that's a broad brush.
Seems reasonable and prudent... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen what's happening in the world?
Re: (Score:3)
^^^^^ That was a proud Note 7 owner!
Re: (Score:2)
So I was sitting in my Ford Kuga, vape in the left hand, Note7 in the right hand... yeah I'm a total bad-ass
(for those countries where the joke doesn't make sense: http://ewn.co.za/2017/01/12/an... [ewn.co.za] )
How is that Traffic Calming working out? (Score:2)
It seems that the number of distracted people hurt in distraction accidents is related to how much traffic calming used in the local area. Around here when they drop speed limits on roads with many shops from 60 km/hr to 40, the number of people jay walking increases and areas where there were a few near misses a year turn into a minor injuries per year.
In the high traffic areas that are now pedestrian and tram only areas, the tram drivers are having far more emergency stops which can injure passengers. A
Re: (Score:2)
But is that due to a greater risk of accident, or due to more people walking when the area becomes pedestrian-friendly?
Re:How is that Traffic Calming working out? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, pedestrians using phones running into other pedestrians is a real problem. Wrist and hip fractures are the common problems seen. A typical situation is a young fit person using a phone bumps into and elderly person who falls. There are also tram lines and an amazing number of people mange to trip over them over the last few years and most were using a phone at the time. I wonder if the jay walking laws need to have words like "or using a phone" added in the right places.
I know the UK started trying to collect stats about these things after their NHS found out how much Pram Rage was costing them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if the jay walking laws need to have words like "or using a phone" added in the right places.
There are no jay walking laws in the UK. We're trusted to be able to cross the roads by ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed a lot of people use their children's pram as a wedge to keep doors open or even start moving into the road so traffic slows and lets them cross. I get that they are probably tired and stressed, but still...
this is how it starts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about no phone-checking in running vehicles, period?
There's a safety campaign in my country at the moment with a slogan that basically translates to, "Drive when you drive." Very sane advice.
More clarification needed... (Score:2)
...as when I used to do long-distance journeys a few years ago, I always listened to music & podcasts on my phone via headphones, with the phone in my top pocket, set up with a playlist at the start of the journey. From the written advice given at the time, I've always believed this to be legal until now. Was my understanding faulty in the first place, or has this now changed?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"hands-free holder or connected by Bluetooth"
Either or, not both. And headphones aren't mentioned at all.
Re: (Score:2)
It says "or" not "XOR" - both is fine too.
Re: (Score:2)
The passenger seat is not a hands-free holder, or any holder at all, so putting it on the passenger seat would be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty arbitrary statement. A passenger seat can most certainly be considered a "hands-free holder" because it's sitting there without you having your hands on it.
Re: (Score:2)
A "holder" is something that holds the item in question, as in keeps it in a specific position without it moving. This ensures there are no moments where the phone slides around on the seat and your reflexes kick in and you reach for it while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
I got you. That makes sense. You think a shirt pocket could qualify as a hands-free holder? I don't really like those suction-cup things you put on your dashboard.
I can't hold a phone when I'm driving anyway. It would mean I'd have to put down my beer.
Re: (Score:2)
If you just set your phone to play music and don't need to skip tracks, then headphone connection is fine. Similarly, if it's in your pocket, or even on the seat next to you you should be fine.
That's what I thought, thank you. Although it does seem that perhaps Plod wouldn't like it anyway, so am glad I don't need to do it any more now I have a connectable stereo in the car.
And yes, this was only something I used to do on long-distance motorway trips, almost never urban driving, precisely because of the possibility of losing some extra spatial awareness (even though, as has been pointed out, you can legally drive deaf and some people deafen themselves with pounding stereos anyway). I also used
end of uber in the UK? (Score:2)
end of uber in the UK? or will they just have drivers with no License picking people up?
Re: (Score:2)
It had to happen. They've been ignoring all other laws related to work and employment ever since their founding -why would they NOT start ignoring licensing laws for drivers ?
Re: (Score:2)
and get sued when some get's injured and there insurance try to get off with them saying that the driver is not Licensed. An 3rd party victim will be nice no EULA to get in the way of a big judgment.
Is it still OK to be pushing 65 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your license lasts till 70 in the UK before you have to renew it with assurances that you are still fit to drive.
Drivers in their 60s are safer than drivers in their 20s. That's why their insurance premiums are lower.
Car itself should recognize such behavior and (Score:2)
I do not understand how car manufacturers get away with it - building cars with 320 km/h speedometers, and at the same time not installing driver's alcohol detector, driver's mobile phone detector, etc.
At the same time more than a million people get killed by these cars each year and millions are wounded. These are WW3 figures.
Re: (Score:2)
Not accurate enough. When I'm on a motorway (speed limit 70mph) and there's another road running parallel, or even a bridge crossing the motorway, my satnav will sometimes pick up the speed limit for that road. Imagine the chaos if all of the satnav speed limited cars suddenly slammed the brakes on as the satnav picked up a 30mph limit by mistake.
Conversely, my satnav has also not realised that a road near to me has had the limit reduced from 70mph to 50mph (even though it's been like that for a few years n
Re: (Score:2)
Well slamming the brakes on would be a pretty dumb implementation. Gently slowing to the speed limit makes more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered how the technology exists for my SatNav to tell me the speed limit of the read I am currently on... but the car doesn't get limited to that speed limit. ...
SatNav in our car does not always list the correct speed limit. There are some roads that had the speed increased years ago and the car (purchased 2016-09) shows the old limit. Driving 55 mph on a road with a 65 mph limit would be suicidal (particularly at the times when most traffic is moving at 75 mph or faster.)
good, but... (Score:2)
even in those instances where you can use your phone (music, navigating if phone is in a stand) the police can still prosecute you. It feels random and just something they can get you with if they want to.
Touch screens in general (Score:2)
Touch screens are generally distracting, because you have to look at them to operate. By this definition, operating a cell phone while driving is bad. Yet car companies seem to be making more and more car controls work via touch screen. This needs to change too.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. All the controls you might need whilst driving should be physical buttons.
Re:Can we please have that here in California? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Same in Florida. They get speeders and DUIs, never texters/distracted drivers. I'm honestly less scared of someone with a .09BAC than someone texting, yet texting and driving seems to be treated like a seatbelt violation or something. It's nuts! I'm usually not in favor of criminalizing common behavior but this is people's lives. Don't use your fucking phone in the car, especially not to text/interact with the screen! Because it worked 999 times in the past doesn't mean it will always work. It is lowering your ability to drive considerably.
As a fellow Florida driver, I agree with this motion.
Re:Can we please have that here in California? (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a cop in Atlanta I think that made a point of getting people stopped at lights or stop signs that were texting. He got droves of them. Most people believe it's only while you're moving but that's not the case. If I have to use my phone I've gotten to where I just pull over in a parking lot or something. I had a case where I was trying to unlock it so I could call and I ran right through a red light. Thank God no one was in the intersection. That cured me. My arrogance in thinking I was superior could have been a disaster.
Re:Can we please have that here in California? (Score:4, Interesting)
Cop checked on me (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
i wonder. if you have your parking brake on, does it count?
Re: (Score:3)
There is a safety concern, though - they are in charge of a vehicle on the public road, and have to react to their surroundings in order to prevent accidents. It sounds like the officer singled it out because so many people wrongly assume it's perfectly safe and reasonable to entirely ignore your environment when in control of a car. If drivers won't learn the law before driving, learning it while driving seems only fair.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a safety concern, though - they are in charge of a vehicle on the public road, and have to react to their surroundings in order to prevent accidents.
There is no realistic situation where somebody stopped at a stoplight needs to "react to their surroundings in order to prevent accidents." I defy you to find one documented case where somebody texting or using their phone while stopped at a stoplight was at fault for an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
There are people who were texting at a light and let their car careen into the one in front of them.
That's an example of a person texting at a light while not stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
if they hadn't been texting they probably would have noticed they were moving.
Re: (Score:3)
That may be the law, but that cop was a jerk. There's no real safety concern with people texting while stopped at a stoplight. Singling that out for special enforcement -- that's just jackass behavior of someone with a little power and an axe to grind.
1) Maybe the cop has sat behind cars that just sit there when the light changes because the driver is busy on their phone.
2) If said person suddenly notices that the light has changed and hits the gas w/out checking to see that the way is clear, it does become a safety issue.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Maybe the cop has sat behind cars that just sit there when the light changes because the driver is busy on their phone.
If he was citing those who were causing a traffic obstruction, I would have no objection to it.
2) If said person suddenly notices that the light has changed and hits the gas w/out checking to see that the way is clear, it does become a safety issue.
The same is true for someone who is not texting and doesn't check that the way is clear. If they cause an accident (or the cop sees them doing that), then sure, give them a ticket for it.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be the law, but that cop was a jerk.
Said anyone who has ever gotten a ticket...
;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And it's also worth remembering that in the UK, the majority of cars are stick shift. So being one handed is even more of an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
That's true pretty much everywhere outside of North America I think. Certainly true for the whole of Europe.
Can't do that in California (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, be an honest person and go grab an envelope and a sheet of paper. Write on the paper "Remember what you said about sixty year old drivers - now give your keys to your kids NO MATTER WHETHER YOU THINK YOU CAN DRIVE OR NOT - all those people I thought couldn't drive, they also thought they could".
On the envelop wrote "Open on my 60th birthday"
And stick it up somewhere you can't lose it.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be fucking ridiculous. Drivers in their 60s are safer than drivers in their 20s. That's why their insurance is lower. People do get too old to drive, bit not generally in their 60s.
Re: (Score:3)
Around here, regular health checks are mandatory to keep your driver's license after 70.
Of course, now that the boomers are facing the possibility of losing their licences, they're putting pressure on politicians to raise it to 80 or abolish the checks altogether.
Re: Can we please have that here in California? (Score:2)
The problem is that they'll end up killing innocent young people as well.
Re: Can we please have that here in California? (Score:2)
Mmm we would need to mitigate that. We want to do it where there are lots of boomers and hardly anybody else.... Florida !
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I did not know I was breaking the law when using voice activated sat nav with my phone in my shirt pocket. I wonder why that would be so distracting though. I mean it does 'talk' to me and tell me when to turn, sort of like a back seat driver but I don't see how that could lead to an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Australia (Score:5, Insightful)
The sat nav didn't kill her; stupidity killed her.
Ah, the law. (Score:2)
Yes, well, that kind of went by the board here (USA) when stupid, and/or lazy, and/or ignorant people ended up being the ones writing the laws.
If you want to prevent an incompetent from doing harm driving, you don't issue them a driver's license. You don't proffer rules that tell them to do things that you can't actually make them do. To allow the incompetent to control a multi-ton death machine because you're too damned stupid, lazy, or ignorant to create an effective set of qualifying metrics is just a su
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are similar laws currently in Australia:
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.a... [vic.gov.au]
As a Skip who moved to Pommiland, mobile phones are not as much of a problem over here as they were back in Oz... Rarely am I stuck behind some stationary suckmuppet at a green turn arrow because they're too busy pissfarting around on their phone and wouldn't put it down until someone beeped at them. Back in Oz, that described every second light however I'd say the situation is definitely getting worse.
So I'd say this is about damn time. Here in the UK the Rozzers tend to enforce laws beyond speed. Do 10
Re:4 steps to a police state (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on. A common sense law that you can't watch movies while you drive isn't evidence of a police state. Put down the crack pipe.
Re: (Score:3)
Must be a libertarian - those guys seriously think that a stop sign on a road is an intrusion into personal liberty comparable to slavery and traffic signals are the flashing signs of the fascist police state.
How dare the evil gubmit tell me when I can cross the intersection. Letting everybody get a chance to cross safely is socialism I tell you !
Re: (Score:2)
If you follow the letter of the law, you're ok. Unless you look like you're doing something wrong, it which case we'll arrest you anyway.
That's crap.
No it's not. All it means is that you drive badly because you are distracted, like not staying in lane you risk getting a ticket for that.
Re: (Score:2)
While the law seems reasonable, if the DMV was forced to list every law applicable to someone driving a vehicle it would likely seem onerous.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I just want to point out that S.Petry's comment above is in a discussion of a law making it illegal to watch fucking movies while you're driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, imagine if a kid walked by and saw one of those fucking movies! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not correct. I can appreciate how you assume you are correct, but that doesn't make it so...
It would help your argument if you knew what a police state is.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
5) Disarm the general public
6) kill free speech
The UK is right on track.
One thing I always feel about the UK is that it muddles along, understated and common. There's a wartime picture of a row of houses which have been bombed out, and the wife, in her little headscarf and coat, is stepping out the front door (what's left of it) to find her husband some milk for breakfast. I always think that sums up the British character. Unmoved, muddle along, and if there is a crisis, it's that we're out of Jaffa Cakes.
The Americans on the other hand, always have "a situation" and it has to
Re: (Score:2)
Point is, I don't think guns and phones matter much to whether this is a free country. It is all in the intangible subtleties of the culture. It is in the common sense of the people. If that goes, we're fucked.
Unfortunately that is simply false. When the Government is setup to be a tyranny, it only takes the right person in office to make it so. The "common sense" of the people should never let the Government get to the point where it's people have no natural rights (personal liberty).
Many Western countries are setup just like the UK, where the wrong person in power means absolute tyranny. It's taken the UK about 15 years to kill free speech, but anything today deemed "hate speech" will land you in jail. The
Re: (Score:2)
Point is, I don't think guns and phones matter much to whether this is a free country. It is all in the intangible subtleties of the culture. It is in the common sense of the people. If that goes, we're fucked.
Unfortunately that is simply false. When the Government is setup to be a tyranny, it only takes the right person in office to make it so. The "common sense" of the people should never let the Government get to the point where it's people have no natural rights (personal liberty).
Many Western countries are setup just like the UK, where the wrong person in power means absolute tyranny. It's taken the UK about 15 years to kill free speech, but anything today deemed "hate speech" will land you in jail. The UK, France, and countless others used to be the Bastions of Free speech that everyone else tried to emulate. Not any longer.
I don't know enough about the politics to know whether you're right. One thing though, my point for what it is worth, is that you seem to be looking at the external aspects, like, what are the laws and do people have arms, whereas I'm wondering more about the internal aspects, what do ordinary people, and politicians, in this country, feel is common sense and appropriate. For example, law says you have to divulge your encryption password, or be thrown in jail for 2 years. But I don't, as far as I know, see
Re: (Score:2)
Hey fuckwit, these laws aren't to protect you - you can fuck off and die horribly in a fire for all anyone cares.
They're to protect everyone else whose lives you are putting in danger by your risk-taking narcissistic indulgence.
Risk your own worthless life however you want as long as you don't put other people at risk.
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure that Franklin didn't mean to impose anarchy and Might Makes Right rules.
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure that Franklin didn't mean to impose anarchy and Might Makes Right rules.
I think Franklin would be appalled at the way we allow our government regulate and micromanage every aspect of our lives. We create whole new classes of crimes and ever increase penalties for existing crimes. We live in a world where the law has grown to such a degree that no human being could ever know all the rules and laws they are subject to. Just carrying cash makes you a suspect subject to forfeiture and the bank is required by law to report you for withdrawing or depositing "too much cash." We li
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly simple. Holding a mobile phone whilst driving reduces your control of the vehicle, and makes you more dangerous to other road users. People are killed because of assholes that do that every day. Therefore there are laws against it. You demented libertarian fucknut.
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly simple. Holding a mobile phone whilst driving reduces your control , and makes you more dangerous to other road users. People are killed because of assholes that do that every day. Therefore there are laws against it. You demented libertarian fucknut.
Just the act of "holding a mobile phone whilst driving reduces your control?" So does picking your nose, changing the radio station, rolling down the windows, turning on the heat, getting out your wallet at the toll booth, setting the cruise control, and so on. So fucking what? Picking up a rectangle of plastic, glass and metals doesn't magically make it instantly evil. And exactly how does checking your phone while stopped waiting in a line/queue reduce your control of the vehicle? (i.e. Can't have pe
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't abstract you stupid jerk. People are dying because other people are using mobile phones rather than concentrating on driving.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't abstract you stupid jerk. People are dying because other people are using mobile phones rather than concentrating on driving.
I hate to break this to you, but dying is your ultimate fate as well. People die all the time because other people drive drowsy. Or make mistakes by pressing the accelerator instead of the brake. Or just not seeing that motorcycle coming down the road. Where are the laws against that?
You have failed to demonstrate exactly why this law is necessary when there are already existing "distracted driving" laws on the books. I have clearly stated that my argument is that this law is crafted solely to allow
Re: (Score:3)
Statistically, newer drivers have the most accidents - which is why we have a 2 year probation here in the UK, which has a lower "lose your license" limit. Other countries have similar restrictions, such as not allowing passengers etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is counterproductive to make it too strict. In Brazil, for example, the probation period lasts one year, and during it you lose your license for all but the most trivial infractions. The result is that people avoid driving at all during this probation period, defeating the whole point of the law.
My guess is that these laws are always made by older people who do not mind fucking over young ones.
Re: (Score:2)
The probation in the UK is actually quite lax - the only real difference (aside from this new law) is you automatically lose your license if you exceed 6 penalty points (its normally 12 points).
And its a damn good idea because the most dangerous group of drivers falls into the group most affected by it - 17-19 year old boy racers.
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see what is the point of punishing them more harshly for the same crime. Just because a 40 year old is less likely to race around doesn't make it less of a crime when he does race around.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it does. He has more experience driving so will be less likely to make a fatal mistake whilst driving fast.
Most of what you learn about driving comes after you passed your test.
Re: (Score:2)
By this logic the harshest punishments of all should be the dealt to drivers that are over 70.
Re: (Score:2)
Older drivers can be forced to surrender their licenses under many different laws, without incurring any penalty points at all. So what you suggest actually already happens.
There is a reason why younger drivers have massive insurance premiums (insurance here is specific to a driver and their car - you cant simply jump in any car and be insured) - an 18 year old driver driving a 1.6 litre car could easily be quoted more than a thousand pounds for insurance. Thats because they have more risk attached to them
Re: (Score:2)
If you cant see why its useful to force newer drivers to be more careful until they gain experience, then its pointless discussing this at all.
A 40 year old who just passes their test has the same restrictions and probationary period, with the same penalties.
A newer driver has less experience, less ingrained knowledge of how a car will react in situations and a different decision making process to more experienced drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for forcing newer drivers to be more careful. I just don't think that being cruel to them accomplishes anything. If there is one thing that was shown over and over again by the criminal justice system is that harsher punishment has very little effect on behaviour. What makes people actually change behaviour is getting caught.
So what I'm favour of is measures that make younger drivers more likely to get caught. For example, forcing them to wear a device that records their speed and letting the police