“In four years Mike van Erp has filmed 1,400 drivers using their phones, leading to 1,800 penalty points, £110,000 of fines — and him being assaulted by disgruntled motorists. Is he a road safety hero or just a darned nuisance? Nick Rufford joins him on patrol”

I’ve watched a few of his videos. I should be surprised that he catches so many drivers in their phones, but in and around London? Not surprised at all.

  • Blake [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • mackwinston
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Blake [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • mackwinston
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Blake [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • mackwinston
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Blake [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • mackwinston
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.