How much is a life worth

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

From day 1, Pandora's box was opened for drivers using mobile phones – "It's against the law to use a mobile phone whilst driving from January first – – – – but we're giving motorists a months grace to get used to it !" since then, so many legal loopholes have been created by "What if" and "Ahh but" scenarios .

Want to stop it? Speaking purely as a heartless idiot, at the roadside the Police should be able to :-

1 Break the Sim card into quarters.

2 Stamp on the phone

3 Have the vehicle impounded AND crushed.

Too harsh? Don't use a mobile phone or ANY hand held device while driving. Softly softly fines DON'T WORK and never will.

Regards Ian.

[DalboyParticipant @dalboy]

I have a policy that my mobile is in my pocket while I am in the car if it did ring which it very rarely does(Nobody want to talk to me) If I was to try and get it out they would have rung off to me no phone call is that important and if it was they would ring back or wait until I can pull over.

I would rather spend money on hobbies than fines

[Anonymous]

Posted by Nigel McBurney 1 on 20/11/2021 10:19:05:

All use while driving of any types of phone/communication should be banned,and placed out of reach of the driver, if caught the phone should be confiscated and destroyed,

I'd go much farther …. back to basics in fact. For anything other than the basic set of driving instruments (speedo, gas-gauge etc) whether mounted to the car or not, the default should be that they are illegal unless specifically approved.

Right now, the default is the reverse …. anything goes and the onus is on the authorities to enact laws to ban – which takes time and cost money. The forces of rabid capitalism are more than happy to take advantage.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Iran has some good solid laws you guys might support

My fav is mass murderers being given a 200 dollar wire instead of 100k a year accommodation

[Nick Clarke 3Participant @nickclarke3]

Posted by Circlip on 20/11/2021 10:43:21:

Want to stop it? Speaking purely as a heartless idiot, at the roadside the Police should be able to :-

1 Break the Sim card into quarters.

2 Stamp on the phone

3 Have the vehicle impounded AND crushed.

In a parallel situation police at one time used to confiscate the film in a camera, often exposing it to the light, from photographers using a camera where the police thought they shouldn't (actually not illegal in most places in the UK even when the subject of a photo complained)

Prosecutions failed through lack of evidence.

Nowadays I suspect the phone would need to be taken as evidence and if a successful prosecution took place it would need to be explicitly punishable by confiscation amongst other penalties before the phone SIM etc could be destroyed – otherwise it would almost certainly need to be returned.

The police in this country do not punish – that is left to the courts to do after an offence has been proved and the defendant found guilty.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Strabnge isn't it, that any contentious legal matter so often brings knee-jerk reactions that totally ignore the entire basis of proper evidence and justice!

Unlike in many countries including I think some European countries that also place burden of proof on the defence rather than prosecution, even the Crown Prosecution Service has no power to ask for particular penalties.

It is for the prosection to furnish sufficient evidence to prove guilt; and in criminal cases it for the magistrates or judge alone to set the penalty appropriate to the case, and within the maxima specified for the offence.

Destroying property destroys evidence, risking making a proper trial of guilt or innocence impossible; so any order for destruction is and must remain a part of sentencing.

I am not saying it always gets it right. We have seen some appalling miscarriages of justice in this country but fortunately they are very rare. We also have too many special-case laws, sometimes named after individuals, brought in as quick reactions to satisfy public vengeance, rather than as properly-analysed refining of existing laws. Quite simply no system ever invented and run by human beings ever manages to be perfect – but taking merely vindictive action such as immediately destroying property at the scene is no better than vigilantism.

.

Nevertheless the motor industry itself does need taking very seriously to task. It should not be allowed to render simple repairs to keep a vehicle legal -such as replacing a failed lamp – impossible for the motorist or breakdown-assistance at the roadside on a dark Winter night. It should not be allowed to install so-called "infotainment" gadgetry so complicated that it becomes even more distracting and dangerous for drivers who ought not be using it while the car in is motion anyway. I gather some even includes television visible by the driver – if so, what idiot was responsible for that? In any case, it is already illegal to use a TV in a vehicle where it is visible to the driver.

'

As for my portable 'phone… it is OFF when and where required by law or otherwise requested; in any cultural event or something like a funeral (the only church services I attend), and voluntarily in any social situation even as informal as a few relatives or friends together anywhere. If I need it, my "sat-nag " is a separate instrument taken only on the specific journey – so not very often.

[Grindstone CowboyParticipant @grindstonecowboy]

Just spotted this article about an award-winning dashboard. Not entirely convinced…

Rob

Links to https://interestingengineering.com/shy-car-dashboard-only-appears-when-needed

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

It should not be allowed to render simple repairs to keep a vehicle legal -such as replacing a failed lamp – impossible for the motorist or breakdown-assistance at the roadside on a dark Winter night.

Nigel,

I do not understand what you are saying here. Given that incandescent bulbs can fail without warning, and that generally there is no warning to the driver, and therefore the driver may be unaware of the defect, then assuming spare lamps and a torch along woth suitable tools are carried, then why should the driver be legally prevented from changing it at the roadside?

Peter G. Shaw

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Peter G. Shaw on 21/11/2021 20:18:55:

It should not be allowed to render simple repairs to keep a vehicle legal -such as replacing a failed lamp – impossible for the motorist or breakdown-assistance at the roadside on a dark Winter night.

Nigel,

I do not understand what you are saying here. Given that incandescent bulbs can fail without warning, and that generally there is no warning to the driver, and therefore the driver may be unaware of the defect, then assuming spare lamps and a torch along woth suitable tools are carried, then why should the driver be legally prevented from changing it at the roadside?

Peter G. Shaw

.

I think you two are in agreement, Peter

MichaelG.

[ChrisHParticipant @chrish]

I agree re usng mobile phnes whilst driving – should be banned. If you want to make or receive a call, pull over and stop the car. Safest way.

Have thought so ever since about 25 years ago a director of the company I worked for was reputedly known to have driven around a roundabout phone in one hand, changing gear with the other and steering using her knee. Nightmare!

[Brian JohnParticipant @brianjohn93961]

Here in Queensland, Australia the fine is now $1,000 ; that is serious money ! The law has only been active for a week and already they have caught over a thousand of people using secret cameras that were installed for this purpose.

[Swarf MakerParticipant @swarfmaker85383]

Posted by Grindstone Cowboy on 21/11/2021 18:09:03:

Just spotted this article about an award-winning dashboard. Not entirely convinced…

Rob

Links to https://interestingengineering.com/shy-car-dashboard-only-appears-when-needed

The major problem with all of these touch screen controls and displays is that they require the user to look at them in order to 'touch' the appropriate part of the screen to fulfil a function. That of itself is a distraction, and often a lengthy one in terms of safety.

The modern trend of ignoring the value of the tactile sense is an extremely retrograde step.

In my car, with conventional knobs and switches, I don't have to divert my eyes from the driving task in order to operate any essential car function.

The radio and SatNav on the other hand has a touch screen and to use that I have to divert my attention to the centre console and look at where to place a finger in order to achieve any simple task. That is simply not appropriate, or good enough, for safe driving.

[John MCParticipant @johnmc39344]

A different take on the "How much is a life worth" subject. Some 10 years ago a colleague and I were asked to look at the costs of buying defibrillators, the training to use and ongoing maintenance for my workplace. The site is big, some four square miles and, being a rural site, somewhat remote from medical assistance so it was thought to be a good idea.

I looked at the costs, the business was awash with money at the time so no problem there. Things got tricky when I looked at the statistics, the effectiveness of the equipment. I don't recall the figures but had this been an industrial process there was no way it would ever happen. Wished I had ignored that. The argument went right to the top and was passed by one vote.

We were made aware of how the voting went and the comment from the senior guy who proposed the idea was that those who voted against were likely to be those who would use a phone while driving!

Seven defibs were installed across the site and none have been used as of a couple of months ago other than being brought to the site of a medial emergency, just in case.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Road stats from the last couple of years are in, and these are only recorded incidents

Goodness knows how many minor injuries never made it to the books, x3? x5?

30,000 serious injuries times ??

Rock climbing is safer IMO

For me The Drug war moniker is appropriate "Just say no!"

Cyclist deaths soar on rural roads in England

**LINK**

Edited By Ady1 on 01/12/2021 09:24:22

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

I couldnlt find this years figures (apart from the BBC) and Gov's publication from end September this year is for the year before.
One could spend a fair time really analysing the meaning of the figures given and the context of Gov's definition of rural.
Here

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2020

Personal view that cyclists and motor vehicles shouldn't be on the same tarmac.
And as someone who regularly gets stuck behind slow moving cyclists for several miles because rural roads aren't conducive to safe overtakes and the cyclist knows his rights and hasn't the good manners of a farm tractor to pull over and let a car queue past.. well they should bring in a law that anyone dressed in Lycra on a bicycle on a Sunday may be shot with a bow and arrow.

pgk

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

That's the biggest problem, the government guys generate confrontation instead of co-operation

In Edinburgh they have instant-change traffic lights at some seriously busy junctions to discourage amber light jumping by cars but this leaves many cyclists waiting to turn with their a** hanging out in the middle of the road when the traffic flow changes

If I was King for a day my first law would be 5 to 10seconds minimum delay between one light going to red and anything else being allowed to change

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

re instant change traffic lights.

In 1969 I was involved in a traffic light collision in which my 2 month old Beetle was written off by a large Rover. What happened was that as I approached the lights, they changed from red to red & amber and so I kept going and crossed the line more or less on green. To be honest, I cannot remember if I did or not, so maybe I was a tiny bit at fault. However, the car that hit us came through on the red according to one witness, and passed another witness who stopped for the lights. The Police informed me that there was no all-red phase on these lights.

Peter G. Shaw

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

I really cannot see how cycling is healthy for you with some many twits using the roads. Where I live on the outskirts of town the paths now have pedestrians, cyclists & the next fad 'E scooters' whizzing about.

Tony

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 01/12/2021 14:26:22

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

If you want exercise on a bicycle then this is for you here

Hard Men of Australia: Road Racing in the late 1940’s to early 1970’s – on Gravel

I gave up my cycle after the first week when I ruptured myself hacking uphill. Not a single health warning on the thing. Private health insurance got me fixed within a week, but I didn't fancy the other side giving way. A stationary rowing machine is way safer.

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi, I'm not pointing the figure or judging anyone, but over the years I've heard a number of people who have had issues about who is right and who is wrong when it comes to collisions at traffic lights. My understanding years ago is that although the light is on green, it doesn't give you automatic right of way and this is where conflicts of opinion arises. Green means you are allowed to proceed, but only if it is clear, so it can mean if someone else has jumped a red or red and amber or even an amber light, then your path may be considered unclear. I have have heard where people have been in such situations and respective insurance companies consider the claims as a fifty / fifty.

This is what is in the Highway Code

The unfortunate thing is that any respectful driver can become involved in such a situation and without valid substantiated proof of who was in the wrong can be difficult and I've come close to such idiots once or twice.

Regards Nick.

[Grindstone CowboyParticipant @grindstonecowboy]

Everyone (and everything, including lamp-posts) on the road is out to kill you. Can't go far wrong thinking that, and it's mostly true.

Rob

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Nicholas Farr on 01/12/2021 14:24:16:

… over the years I've heard a number of people who have had issues about who is right and who is wrong …

Regards Nick.

Me too, and it causes lots of trouble!

I've long since concluded it's a mistake to do anything on the road just because I'm in the right. Better to assume all drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are complete idiots and keep out of their way! I might even be having a bad day myself.

If distracted or selfish driving is going to cause an accident, count me out.

Dave

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Rule 1

Use your common sense

Rule 2

Everything else, the Highway code etc

Turning right when the lights change can be a bad one, always wait for anything, even if you have "right of way"

The pedestrian light may be at the green man when you finally turn, draw up and wait for the green man to go off and any bodies to clear before proceeding

As long as you don't drive in a threatening manner and use your indicators then things toodle along

If I get a muppet behind me I tend to pull over, many don't have valid insurance anyway, then I get to watch from a safe distance while he weaves about with the car in front like an ME109 on the tail of a Spitfire

Edited By Ady1 on 01/12/2021 15:47:45

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Who remembers "Don't be an Amber Gambler" ?

Neil

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

As a motor cyclist I was practising defensive riding more than fifty years ago, this carried on when driving a car and the advent of the backward baseball cap mob. Sadly, your common sense doesn't always work.

Regards Ian.

[Author]

Posts