Mobile phones and driving

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Brum Phil

 

I am not ageist - I was merely replying to a point above, and I think I replied to it in a logical and fairly well thought out manner. Ken stated he thought OAPS were given preference by insurance companies and I just didn't think that was truly accurate when you get above 70. Likewise the facts about peoples responses dropping etc are perfectly valid.

 

If no one on here is prepared to accept there are a great many old people who should be on the road, then fair enough - I fully accept (and I did make the same point) that 18 year olds should sit more difficult tests as well (and longer etc). My point was simply (again) that there are many risks on the road today, some are targeted and others quite blatantly are overlooked (again, such as recreational drug use).

 

Also, just because I ride a motorcycle doesn't mean I ride like an idiot - a fairly huge misconception there - AND I've said this before living in a big biking country the accidents are nearly always to 40 odd year old blokes who hop on a new bike having not been on one 20 years (for anyone that lives in Lincoln shire I am sure you'll agree you read about relatively few 20 year olds being killed on bikes compared to the 40/50 year old bracket). Myself - I am certainly no scratcher (which a VFR750 isn't really for anyway - it's much more of a sports tourer).

 

I merely took up the gauntlet after you made the original very strong statement condemning OAPs driving ability, the official age for being an OAP is 65yrs, the official medical test kick in at 75yrs and quite rightly and the re-issuing of the license is dependent on that result, it does however seem that some people over that age are either driving without a license or the medicals have been less than thorough. Both insurance and license authorities ask about disabilities not matter what age you are and I know several people well under the age of 65yrs who have impaired eyesight and other problems which should ban them from driving.

 

I fail to see why this is being called a stealth tax, are you saying it is OK to drive whilst on the phone?

 

There are many other reasons why people should not drive and many are covered already by law, it is illegal to drive whilst under the influence of drugs prescription or other wise, and all medicines having side effects even those cold cures are clearly marked and unfortunately mostly ignored.

 

However if the laws regarding these other problems are strengthened will they also be regarded as stealth taxes??

[Andy_1984]

theres this old trader guy who trades to some of the shops around here, i think hes in his 70's he took 20 minutes to reverse up a slight hill and had another car parked in front of him, everytime hed reverse he was realy struggling with the clutch and then rolling forward hitting the car infront everytime. his car is full of scratches, dents, and things hangin off. on the other hand ive seen other 70 year old drivers do an amazing job at driving.

 

saturday i was in motherwell coming home there was this teen in a clapped out old vauxhall hatchback music pumping he looked at me and my m8 not looking at the road and he was being realy abusive to his steering wheel and chair frusting himself back and forward to the music. we laughed for ages as it was a realy funny thing to see but come a few weeks/months hes gonna kill himself or someone else.

 

there are all sorts of dangers on the road and every single one has to be Strictly adhered to if only there was a full proof method of weeding out such careless people.

 

a cool little invention would be a car charger that tells the phone you are driving and anyone else who trys to ring you and to call back later and not even making you aware of the call like ringing oir messages / alerts untill you unplug it.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Andy_1984

[Steve Walker]

uk fishing tackle......

 

....give it a rest old son!!!!!

 

You are without doubt being AGEIST!

 

Sorry Phil, but he does have a point. The accident statistics clearly show that the two most dangerous groups on the road are the very old and the very young. It's easy to shout "ageism", but it's really only the same as pointing out that young drivers are high risk, and surely you wouldn't make the same allegation to that? These make interesting reading:

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car...p;in_page_id=35

http://www.car-insurance-route.co.uk/pensi...r-insurance.php

 

The Institute of Advanced Motoring recently published statistics showing that of 7,035 car accidents last year where a driver was either critically injured or killed, 550 of them involved an elderly driver (over 70). Representing 8% of these accidents, it makes the over 70's group more dangerous that any other age bracket.

The Association of British Insurers support the statistics, adding that drivers aged over 70 are 13% more likely to claim on their car insurance than drivers aged 40 - 50.

 

The cost of insurance is determined by risk, so 75 year olds pay a third more than their 50 year old counterparts. Drivers aged 80 pay the same as a boy racer. Drivers in their early 50's get the best deals, but that will soon start to change once you've passed 60.

[Andy_1984]

all my colleges went out and bought bluetooth headsets today

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Sorry Phil, but he does have a point. The accident statistics clearly show that the two most dangerous groups on the road are the very old and the very young. It's easy to shout "ageism", but it's really only the same as pointing out that young drivers are high risk, and surely you wouldn't make the same allegation to that? These make interesting reading:

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car...p;in_page_id=35

http://www.car-insurance-route.co.uk/pensi...r-insurance.php

 

I am not so sure those stats truly reflect the elderly situation, I know several drivers over the age of seventy, two stick out in my mind as high risk simply because they are not medically fit to drive but they are not the subject of medicals to retain their license. On the other end of the stick we have two seventy plus men who do gardening for a living, are extremely fit and both drive with trailers better than most I see.

 

I knew a guy when I worked in KSA who was 46yrs and one of the worse drivers I have ever known, we always parked under steel supported canopies and the sides of his car were pebble dashed, why? Because the idiot had poor eyesight and could not judge the turn correctly.

 

I knew an old girl in Salisbury who owned the private school my son used to go to, a lovely woman but a total disaster on the road, she was renowned for her lack of driving skills, she used to go most of the way in first gear whilst continuously crunching the gears trying to get into second Strangely she never had an accident, picked up acres of parking tickets, would leave her car where it was most convenient for her and sod the yellow lines

 

But getting back to the whole point of this thread, do you regard the mobile phone law as a safety measure or a stealth tax?

 

It seems to me that someone is trying very hard to evade that question whilst casting doubts on elderly drivers ability to drive

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

Did I use the word stealth tax though? I think I purely said the timing was convienient because of the current black hole in finances and the kerbs on council tax, which in my opinion I think it is - if this generates a billion quid a year then it is definitely a money maker.

 

You know I pretty much take the approach that a 28 day ban would punish more drivers than a points/fine based system - but hey - not a cat in hells chance of enforcing it. So lets impound the car as well. The points/fining principle is all well and good but does it teach you a lesson? If we want to categorise mobile phone use with drink driving (which from many reports on the concentration aspect I believe it can be) then why allow them to potentially be murders four times before giving them a punishment that counts. Short, sharp shocks, perhaps accumalitive (i.e. 28 day ban first time, 56 days the second and so on).

 

.... Speeding and other offences could also be handled in a similar way. Great news is it would also be better for the environment because at any one point you'd have about two hundred thousand cars off the road ....

 

The real point I was trying to portray is that mobile phones are nice and easy targets to spot and fine. Drug driving (whatever you wish to call it) isn't so much - and it would almost certainly require expensive hardware, two court appearances, risk to the arresting officer AND the distinct possibility of a custodial sentence on a system which is already overcrowded. I sometimes think law enforcement is based more around convienience at times, rather than the need AND before anyone starts I don't necessarily blame the police for that, but the people who pressurise them into hitting targets for fixed penalty offences.

Edited February 28, 2007 by UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk

[chesters1]

i drive whilst under the "influence" of drugs as millions do (and i get your point)

mind you if i didnt balancing on the top of a hugely enlarged prostrate (and its problems) could be very concentration breaking ,you can "quote" drink because it has a set boundary regarding driving but putting drugs into one great basket could end up in tears.

"side effects" that you quote are "possible" not part of the drug ,my lot have a great set of "possible" side effects from erectile problems to sudden death ,if everyone on drugs couldnt drive because of a "possible" side effect then the roads would be empty

"possible" side effects on packaging is purely there to put the drug company one foot above the law so the list grows bigger every year ,someone takes a pill and they drop dead and the company says "well they were warned" if someone takes a pill and falls over a cliff you can bet your life " falling over cliffs" will be on the next batches instructions as a "possible" side effect.

drink and drugs effect different people differently but all are lumped into one group in the eyes of some.

it wasent so long ago that drinking and driving was tolerated by the masses ,not so now but strangely more offences happen yearly even now they have a far greater chance of being dobbed in to the police.

as i said its fear of being caught that changes things and now police are only about a fortnight before christmas those drinkers and phone users will carry on whatever the fine is.

ofcourse this puts another slant on things and "big brother" gets tighter ,untill now you only got your picture taken if you broke the law on speed cameras but now will all cars have their picture taken incase their on the phone.

from a "necessary" bit of roadside machinery that catches out the lawbreakers to just logging your wherabouts for survelance in one quick swoop ,this phone is a great way to watch people and ofcourse as always for "safety" reasons!!

Edited February 28, 2007 by chesters1

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

I was more referring to recreational use - apparently many places have roadside testing equipment, similar to the link below

 

http://www.cozartgroup.com/shop.php?cPath=38_69_61

 

A one off price, and then about £5 per test cartridge (bearing in mind you are checking suspected drug abusers you'd hope for a failiure rate approaching 20% or something you'd of thought - making it £25 per conviction!).

 

Which to me looks very cost effective - according to the BBC I think the same system is used in some police stations already - why not have the things mobile?

[gozzer]

Why all this discussion about different categories of driver?

I know insurers and such find it easier to assess a risk by putting people into convenient pigeon holes, but we are all individuals. I know many drivers of all ages, gender, and temperament. Some are good, some bad and some (like most of us) are reasonably proficient behind a wheel.

Just because some statistics say that, group X is involved in 20% of accidents doesn't mean that all that group are bad drivers. The statistics only show what ever the compiler wants them to show. It wont say how many of the 20% involved groups Y and Z, if its not in their interests to do so.

 

As for the new mobile law, I agree totally with it. You cannot compare using a phone, with lighting a cig, or changing stations on the radio. The couple of seconds it takes to do those, ( I know that the two seconds could be the cause of an incident), is nothing compared to holding a phone, for up to 30mins, while trying to negotiate traffic. It's worse if it's a call that demands your full attention, and requires important decisions.

It's the same with a passenger talking. I cringe when I see drivers turn to face whoever they are talking to, even if they are on the backseat.

Any passengers that get into my car, knows that I will stop talking at certain times, and the rest is a quick yes or no.

 

John.

[Steve Walker]

I am not so sure those stats truly reflect the elderly situation, I know several drivers over the age of seventy, two stick out in my mind as high risk simply because they are not medically fit to drive but they are not the subject of medicals to retain their license. On the other end of the stick we have two seventy plus men who do gardening for a living, are extremely fit and both drive with trailers better than most I see.

 

They're generalisations, and there will be exceptions, just as many young male drivers are proficient, sensible and careful (and far more likely to be slandered by generalisation, as well as subject to horrific insurance rates). They only work when you compare groups, not individuals.

 

But getting back to the whole point of this thread, do you regard the mobile phone law as a safety measure or a stealth tax?

 

Personally, I think it's over-legislation. Where appropriate, I'd simply do them for the more serious offence of driving without due care and attention, which carries a court appearance and from 3-9 points. I wouldn't prosecute people for, for instance, using the phone while stationary in a motorway tailback to say that they were going to be late. I don't think it's about money, I do think it's about this government's trigger-happy approach to new legislation.