Enforcement of motoring offences

jon0844 · 18 Dec 2017

Moderator note: split from Croydon tram crash thread

edwin_m said:
Conversely, if you do manage to change people's behaviour on the roads you save a large number of lives for relatively little cost. See for example how drink-driving these days is socially unacceptable to a large part of the population, whereas in the 1980s most people saw the sin as being caught for it. There would be another drop in road deaths if speeding or using a phone when driving became similarly unacceptable.

Here's where there's been a huge problem with cameras replacing a lot of the work of police officers, as I am sure drink driving (or drug driving) is increasing, and certainly drug driving seems to be a problem with younger motorists. Of course there wasn't really a way to test for drugs in the past, but I do think we're now forgetting that new generations don't know about the socially unacceptable stuff.

Our local police will no doubt do a sting in the next week and then publish stats to show how many people were caught under the influence. In previous years it's usually around 10%, which is staggering. If that many people fail roadside tests, why are they only doing a handful of stings per year?

Mobile phone usage is worse now than it was ten years ago. Despite the heaviest penalties ever, people are so addicted to their smartphones that they're willing to read messages and even reply whilst driving. It's about a billion times worse than holding a phone to chat, which in itself is dangerous, as you're not even looking at the road - let alone in control of the vehicle.

Speeding is always going to be an issue, but I'd be more fearful of someone under the influence or not even looking as more likely ways of being involved in an 'accident' either in another car, or as a pedestrian.

RailUK Forums

Baxenden Bank · 19 Dec 2017

jon0844 said:
Our local police will no doubt do a sting in the next week and then publish stats to show how many people were caught under the influence. In previous years it's usually around 10%, which is staggering. If that many people fail roadside tests, why are they only doing a handful of stings per year?

Because they have annual targets to meet, they can meet those targets in one day of concentrated effort, and then get on with what they regard as 'proper policing' for the next 364 days until 'the day' comes round again.

Antman · 21 Dec 2017

jon0844 said:
Here's where there's been a huge problem with cameras replacing a lot of the work of police officers, as I am sure drink driving (or drug driving) is increasing, and certainly drug driving seems to be a problem with younger motorists. Of course there wasn't really a way to test for drugs in the past, but I do think we're now forgetting that new generations don't know about the socially unacceptable stuff.

Our local police will no doubt do a sting in the next week and then publish stats to show how many people were caught under the influence. In previous years it's usually around 10%, which is staggering. If that many people fail roadside tests, why are they only doing a handful of stings per year?

Mobile phone usage is worse now than it was ten years ago. Despite the heaviest penalties ever, people are so addicted to their smartphones that they're willing to read messages and even reply whilst driving. It's about a billion times worse than holding a phone to chat, which in itself is dangerous, as you're not even looking at the road - let alone in control of the vehicle.

Speeding is always going to be an issue, but I'd be more fearful of someone under the influence or not even looking as more likely ways of being involved in an 'accident' either in another car, or as a pedestrian.

I don't know where you're referring to but I travel a lot around London and the south east and very rarely see anybody illegally using a phone when driving since tougher penalties came in.

bramling · 21 Dec 2017

Sussex Guy said:
I don't know where you're referring to but I travel a lot around London and the south east and very rarely see anybody illegally using a phone when driving since tougher penalties came in.

Take a drive on something like the A1 into London. You’re pretty much guaranteed to see someone doing it. Often conspicuous by their poor lane discipline and/or drifting across white lines.

If the thought of killing one’s self and/or others isn’t enough, what difference will a slightly stiffer penalty make? <sigh>

Sadly it’s not uncommon to see “professional” drivers doing it either.

jon0844 · 21 Dec 2017

Sussex Guy said:
I don't know where you're referring to but I travel a lot around London and the south east and very rarely see anybody illegally using a phone when driving since tougher penalties came in.

On my home street alone, I've seen loads of cars in the morning with a phone in hand or lap (as I wait at the bus stop).

I assume people had to get off to work, but also had to catch up on what's on their Facebook or Whatsapp. As such they figured they could do both at once.

More people are likely using their phone than talking on it. In comparison, I'd rather everyone was holding their phone and at least looking at where they were going than having their eyes focussed on a small screen.

At night you can see it all the more easily given the screen lighting illuminating the face of the user with the phone, supposedly, out of sight. I assume the police look for this, as it's a dead giveaway.

I really wish the tougher penalties were getting through. I've seen couriers and taxi drivers on phones, so even people who have a lot to lose don't seem to have given up. Maybe they just moderate their usage in areas where they think they'll get caught. Clearly not housing estates, business parks or near empty roads at night.

Antman · 21 Dec 2017

jon0844 said:
On my home street alone, I've seen loads of cars in the morning with a phone in hand or lap (as I wait at the bus stop).

I assume people had to get off to work, but also had to catch up on what's on their Facebook or Whatsapp. As such they figured they could do both at once.

More people are likely using their phone than talking on it. In comparison, I'd rather everyone was holding their phone and at least looking at where they were going than having their eyes focussed on a small screen.

At night you can see it all the more easily given the screen lighting illuminating the face of the user with the phone, supposedly, out of sight. I assume the police look for this, as it's a dead giveaway.

I really wish the tougher penalties were getting through. I've seen couriers and taxi drivers on phones, so even people who have a lot to lose don't seem to have given up. Maybe they just moderate their usage in areas where they think they'll get caught. Clearly not housing estates, business parks or near empty roads at night.

I see the occasional driver looking down, almost certainly at a phone and yes supposedly professional drivers are the worst, but I can't remember the last time I saw somebody quite blatantly driving along with a phone to their ear, a sight that was once commonplace.

Baxenden Bank · 21 Dec 2017

Sussex Guy said:
I see the occasional driver looking down, almost certainly at a phone and yes supposedly professional drivers are the worst, but I can't remember the last time I saw somebody quite blatantly driving along with a phone to their ear, a sight that was once commonplace.

You clearly live in a special area. Standing at a bus stop or pelican crossing, or looking at cars going past when on the bus, I can guarantee to see several drivers on phones every time I am out. That's when they're not having a shave or drinking coffee etc.

Antman · 21 Dec 2017

Baxenden Bank said:
You clearly live in a special area. Standing at a bus stop or pelican crossing, or looking at cars going past when on the bus, I can guarantee to see several drivers on phones every time I am out. That's when they're not having a shave or drinking coffee etc.

I can assure you there is nothing special about where I live.

Antman · 22 Dec 2017

Baxenden Bank said:
You clearly live in a special area. Standing at a bus stop or pelican crossing, or looking at cars going past when on the bus, I can guarantee to see several drivers on phones every time I am out. That's when they're not having a shave or drinking coffee etc.

Well Greater Manchester Police are certainly taking action in the aptly named operation tramline

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2017-12-22/police-capture-drivers-eating-watching-tv-and-texting/

Robertj21a · 22 Dec 2017

Sussex Guy said:
I see the occasional driver looking down, almost certainly at a phone and yes supposedly professional drivers are the worst, but I can't remember the last time I saw somebody quite blatantly driving along with a phone to their ear, a sight that was once commonplace.

I've seen about 10 using their mobile phone while driving, in about 30 mins earlier today.

bramling · 22 Dec 2017

Sussex Guy said:
I see the occasional driver looking down, almost certainly at a phone and yes supposedly professional drivers are the worst, but I can't remember the last time I saw somebody quite blatantly driving along with a phone to their ear, a sight that was once commonplace.

Saw one at my local station just now. Worse, it was a taxi driver.

Antman · 22 Dec 2017

Robertj21a said:
I've seen about 10 using their mobile phone while driving, in about 30 mins earlier today.

I suggest you inform the police then

Antman · 22 Dec 2017

bramling said:
Saw one at my local station just now. Worse, it was a taxi driver.

Doesn't surprise me at all, probably the worst offenders. In fact I saw one get nicked in Trafalgar Square a few months ago.

Robertj21a · 22 Dec 2017

Sussex Guy said:
I suggest you inform the police then

What am I supposed to say ? - numerous people driving along roads see many others using phones. What would you do ?

AlterEgo · 22 Dec 2017

Sussex Guy said:
I suggest you inform the police then

As if the police are going to do anything.

Antman · 22 Dec 2017

Robertj21a said:
What am I supposed to say ? - numerous people driving along roads see many others using phones. What would you do ?

Well if as you say a large number of motorists are breaking the law in this particular area I think informing the police might be a good idea?

Antman · 22 Dec 2017

AlterEgo said:
As if the police are going to do anything.

What like Greater Manchester police aren't doing anything? See my link above. Devon and Cornwall police have been using a double decker bus to spot people using phones whilst driving. Just because you don't see them don't assume nothing is being done.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/318...o-catch-catch-drivers-on-their-mobile-phones/

AlterEgo · 22 Dec 2017

Sussex Guy said:
What like Greater Manchester police aren't doing anything? See my link above. Devon and Cornwall police have been using a double decker bus to spot people using phones whilst driving. Just because you don't see them don't assume nothing is being done.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/318...o-catch-catch-drivers-on-their-mobile-phones/

Do you really reckon that’s off the back of people making phone calls to report motorists, or do you think it’s more likely the police are driven by wanting to run a PR story?

The police will do sweet FA about you ringing up 101 to say you’ve seen people using phones while driving. Except perhaps say “yes, we know!”.

Antman · 22 Dec 2017

AlterEgo said:
Do you really reckon that’s off the back of people making phone calls to report motorists, or do you think it’s more likely the police are driven by wanting to run a PR story?

The police will do sweet FA about you ringing up 101 to say you’ve seen people using phones while driving. Except perhaps say “yes, we know!”.

Quite possibly? If nobody tells them they're not going to know.........about anything. Not everybody has your negative attitude.

AlterEgo · 22 Dec 2017

Sussex Guy said:
Quite possibly? If nobody tells them they're not going to know.........about anything. Not everybody has your negative attitude.

It isn’t a negative attitude, it’s a realistic one.

What isn’t realistic is thinking that unless the public tell the police everything then the police know nothing. This is plainly not true.

Front line police I’m sure are more than aware of the fact that lots of people use their phones while driving, and they don’t need me to pick up the phone to tell them that.

Chris M · 22 Dec 2017

If you regularly see people on road X using their phones then tell the police this and they'll know have an operation there. Remember that if someone sees a marked police vehicle they will turn the phone off.

Robertj21a · 23 Dec 2017

Sussex Guy said:
Well if as you say a large number of motorists are breaking the law in this particular area I think informing the police might be a good idea?

Which forces do you consider cover the M23, M25 and A2 ?

Jonny · 23 Dec 2017

AlterEgo said:
Do you really reckon that’s off the back of people making phone calls to report motorists, or do you think it’s more likely the police are driven by wanting to run a PR story?

Which is particularly dirty on the bus company's part since what do you do if you get banned?

furnessvale · 24 Dec 2017

jon0844 said:
Moderator note: split from Croydon tram crash thread

Speeding is always going to be an issue, but I'd be more fearful of someone under the influence or not even looking as more likely ways of being involved in an 'accident' either in another car, or as a pedestrian.

Given that my satnav tells me what speed I AM doing and what speed I SHOULD BE doing, I cannot see too much of a problem, technically speaking, of linking that to a governor on the engine.

Politically speaking, given the power of petrolheads, I cannot see that ever being done.

Bromley boy · 24 Dec 2017

furnessvale said:
Given that my satnav tells me what speed I AM doing and what speed I SHOULD BE doing, I cannot see too much of a problem, technically speaking, of linking that to a governor on the engine.

Politically speaking, given the power of petrolheads, I cannot see that ever being done.

I'm not sure that would help matters. The speed limit isn't the speed you should be doing. It's a limit, not a target.

90mph on a clear motorway is illegal but is a lot safer than a perfectly legal 60mph on a winding national speed limit country lane, or even a legal 70mph on the same motorway when it's raining and visibility is greatly reduced due to spray.

Speeding is an issue of course but driving too fast for the conditions/tailgating/poor lane discipline etc are arguably just as dangerous. I'd have thought using a mobile phone while driving was significantly more dangerous than speeding alone, although clearly both are illegal.

I'd rather see the police actively patrolling the roads, clamping down on poor driving, mobile phone use etc., than planting speed cameras on every street corner to raise revenue and ignoring everything else.

Sincerely,

A. Petrolhead

furnessvale · 24 Dec 2017

Bromley boy said:
I'm not sure that would help matters. The speed limit isn't the speed you should be doing. It's a limit, not a target.

90mph on a clear motorway is illegal but is a lot safer than a perfectly legal 60mph on a winding national speed limit country lane, or even a legal 70mph on the same motorway when it's raining and visibility is greatly reduced due to spray.

Speeding is an issue of course but driving too fast for the conditions/tailgating/poor lane discipline etc are arguably just as dangerous. I'd have thought using a mobile phone while driving was significantly more dangerous than speeding alone, although clearly both are illegal.

I'd rather see the police actively patrolling the roads, clamping down on poor driving, mobile phone use etc., than planting speed cameras on every street corner to raise revenue and ignoring everything else.

Sincerely,

A. Petrolhead

Petrolheads are slipping. The last time I posted this proposition I was blasted from a great height by multiple sources within seconds.

My response will always be the same. Just because we cannot eliminate every source of danger is no reason not to try and eliminate some, especially where automation can help us. Speeding in bad conditions? Easy! The same switch that illuminates the matrix signs automatically changes the authorised speed limit which of course a real time linked satnav will pick up.

Bromley boy · 24 Dec 2017

furnessvale said:
Petrolheads are slipping. The last time I posted this proposition I was blasted from a great height by multiple sources within seconds.

My response will always be the same. Just because we cannot eliminate every source of danger is no reason not to try and eliminate some, especially where automation can help us. Speeding in bad conditions? Easy! The same switch that illuminates the matrix signs automatically changes the authorised speed limit which of course a real time linked satnav will pick up.

These days the petrolheads have probably all gone out and bought Nissan Leafs

.

Hmm. Would that work? The dot matrix motorway signs seem to display arbitrarily low limits when the road is clear and remain blank in other, more dangerous, situations. Also they are often advisory only (unless displayed inside a red circle).

How would you enforce against those using their phone as a sat nav, rather than an in-built one?

I guess my main point is that there seems to have been a shift away from traffic police patrols (do they even exist any more?!) policing bad driving, drunk driving, driving with phones etc in favour of static speed cameras.

Domh245 · 24 Dec 2017

furnessvale said:
My response will always be the same. Just because we cannot eliminate every source of danger is no reason not to try and eliminate some, especially where automation can help us. Speeding in bad conditions? Easy! The same switch that illuminates the matrix signs automatically changes the authorised speed limit which of course a real time linked satnav will pick up.

That is similar to some of the proposals about driverless trains where you automate the driver but leave the everything trackside the same - it's half-arsed, and delivers little benefit over the existing system at great cost. For a bit more spending, you can go the whole hog and go for fully driverless cars instead of remote speed limiters which will give far greater benefits.

Bromley boy · 24 Dec 2017

Domh245 said:
That is similar to some of the proposals about driverless trains where you automate the driver but leave the everything trackside the same - it's half-arsed, and delivers little benefit over the existing system at great cost. For a bit more spending, you can go the whole hog and go for fully driverless cars instead of remote speed limiters which will give far greater benefits.

My understanding is that the main benefits of driverless cars will only arise when *all* the cars are driverless. There are many people who enjoy driving, myself included, who will never choose a driverless car.

I can’t help but think the “driverless car revolution” we keep hearing about will be a slow, incremental process over the next few decades rather than the “Big Bang” the media seems to believe.

Howardh · 24 Dec 2017

R/e driverless cars, I presume a drunk would never be allowed to be "in charge" of them in case they had to take over? Or will this be the future of me getting home from the pub? But it will be the future even if we can't envisage it now, just think where we are now from 20 years ago.

Enforcement of motoring offences

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member