Warning to Bradford drivers using mobile phones (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

they have em on camera so send em a nice surprise, a fine thru the post with a nice little snapshot of them in action so they cant refute any claims !

The standards of driving in this area can only be described as appalling. I see it every day of the week I am on the roads, children not properly restrained in vehicles, drivers not wearing seat belts, driving while using hand held mobile phones (LS29 is no exception). This will go on and on as long as there is no deterrent, the Police are just not there to catch these law breakers, but at the end of the day, it is up to each one of us to behave in a resposible manner when we are behind the wheel.

I'm not shocked. It's blatant.

I think they should have a national campaign with slogans like: "Is that phone call worth a life?", "Would you rather die than miss that call?" & "Is that really a life or death phone call?".

A very carefully selected picture you've displayed for us there T and A.

It's just another daft law which is routinely ignored. How come it is dangerous to use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink but it is legal to have a cigarette with a 1000 degree c tip floating above my groin and it is also ok to waft a cigarette lighter around to light it whilst driving. I do not recall any prosecution for this offence. Also how come a police person can operate their walkie-talkie whilst driving as they don't have hands free. Carry on phoning !! Let's have some consistency with traffic law

Just because its a law you dont agree with "up with the partridge" doesnt mean that you should advocate ignoring it.

Its not a daft law. People have been killed because drivers have been distracted whilst on mobile phones. I was stuck on the M62 for several hours behind one such incident.

They should make the punishment for using hand held mobile phones the same as drink driving. It only costs a couple of quid to buy a hands free wire.

As for people doing it??? I would suggest that the safety people do their survey at the bottom of Great Horton Road at around 1700 hrs on a mid week and you will see many many more than 4 a minute and you will see hundreds of people who dont wear seatbelts, simply because they can.

I have witnessed several times where a car full of young men, not a seatbelt in sight, with the driver using a mobile phone was in front of a police car. Of course the police car stopped them...... yeh right......

As long as people can get away with it they will.

"The Telegraph & Argus photographed 15 motorists on hand-held phones in the space of only one hour at Jacob’s Well roundabout yesterday."
...
So did the T&A give these photos to the Police or were they just regarded (or disregarded) as news-filler?

Brent_Meister wrote:
"The Telegraph & Argus photographed 15 motorists on hand-held phones in the space of only one hour at Jacob’s Well roundabout yesterday." ... So did the T&A give these photos to the Police or were they just regarded (or disregarded) as news-filler?

The police cannot do anything about the T&A's photos because the law says a uniformed office must observe the offence and there is no proof from the T&A's photos that the vehicles were not stationary

So far as I know Brent Meister, a police officer must see the incident himself, not merely a photo from a civilian. Could be wrong though.

Freddy Elliot wrote:
So far as I know Brent Meister, a police officer must see the incident himself, not merely a photo from a civilian. Could be wrong though.

No you are absolutely correct and that's how it should be. We don't want a load of busybody members of the public reporting us for minor offences. Maybe as I read Bradford has the highest percentage of uninsured drivers, these people on their phones are arranging insurance which has got to be good hasn't it?

Using a mobile whilst driving should be treated exactly the same as drink driving and carry an automatic 12 month ban, after all it's just as dangerous. At present there is no deterrent, lots of these ignorant people are not bothered about a £60 fine and 3 penalty points, I say ban them and help stop an innocent person being badly injured or worse.

The roads must have been quiet to have only seen 15 in 60 minutes and if they had counted those not wearing seat belts and children not in seats or belted in they would have lost count !!!!!

Only 15 in an hour!! I can beat that in the 10 mins it takes to walk home from dropping kids at school! Today I saw a hgv belonging to a hgv driving school with the driver on the phone, so either the instructor or pupil was talking on phone. What an example to set!

A very minor traffic offence that hardly warrants a big police campaign IMO. I would rather the police concentrate on the many instances of reckless and dangerous driving that happen in this city every day.

a lot more of reckless and dangerous driving happens whilst people are on their phones! about time these idiots were caught

smoore wrote:
The standards of driving in this area can only be described as appalling. I see it every day of the week I am on the roads, children not properly restrained in vehicles, drivers not wearing seat belts, driving while using hand held mobile phones (LS29 is no exception). This will go on and on as long as there is no deterrent, the Police are just not there to catch these law breakers, but at the end of the day, it is up to each one of us to behave in a resposible manner when we are behind the wheel.

Not wearing a seatbelt or having children appropriately restrained does not affect the standard of driving. It's just unsafe for them person(s) should the vehicle be involved in a collision.
Likewise, using your mobile phone, although now a specific offence, it may not affect your standard of driving, merely affect the concentration on the road.
Although I do agree, the standards displayed of driving are quite appalling nonetheless and I totally agree it's not just the responsibility of the police to enforce legislation but down to each and everyone of us.

Up with the partridge wrote:

Freddy Elliot wrote: So far as I know Brent Meister, a police officer must see the incident himself, not merely a photo from a civilian. Could be wrong though.

No you are absolutely correct and that's how it should be. We don't want a load of busybody members of the public reporting us for minor offences. Maybe as I read Bradford has the highest percentage of uninsured drivers, these people on their phones are arranging insurance which has got to be good hasn't it?

Under the Road Traffic Act, it makes no mention of an officer in uniform having to observe the offence.
I am aware of an individual being successfully prosecuted from the independent evidence of a member of the public being stood at a bus stop. And also another motorist being prosecuted having been seen on City Centre CCTV.
I'm sure if the reporter made statements regarding every single one and submitted their camera evidence, should the police pursue the matters, I'm sure of a positive outcome.
Using a mobile phone whilst driving is a an offence in its own right, mainly due to the fact that you are 4 times more likely to be involved in a collision whilst using a phone whilst driving. If having had a collision, you may also be prosecuted for careless driving.

Up with the partridge wrote:
It's just another daft law which is routinely ignored. How come it is dangerous to use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink but it is legal to have a cigarette with a 1000 degree c tip floating above my groin and it is also ok to waft a cigarette lighter around to light it whilst driving. I do not recall any prosecution for this offence. Also how come a police person can operate their walkie-talkie whilst driving as they don't have hands free. Carry on phoning !! Let's have some consistency with traffic law

In answer to "How come it is dangerous t use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink, but legal to have a cigarette......"
The above are instances whereby a driver has been prosecuted for "Not being in proper control of their vehicle" or "Driving without due care and attention"
For driving without due care and attention, there has to be evidence of some form of incidence or loss of control (however temporary) or lack of concentration.
Not being in proper control of your vehicle would be holding something in your hand, eg drink bottle, sandwich etc, but a cigarette is slightly different in that it would be held in the mouth, takes less concentration to use, but really it comes down to the fact that it has been socially acceptable for longer than driving itself.

Up with the partridge wrote:
It's just another daft law which is routinely ignored. How come it is dangerous to use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink but it is legal to have a cigarette with a 1000 degree c tip floating above my groin and it is also ok to waft a cigarette lighter around to light it whilst driving. I do not recall any prosecution for this offence. Also how come a police person can operate their walkie-talkie whilst driving as they don't have hands free. Carry on phoning !! Let's have some consistency with traffic law

It should be illegal to smoke while driving. You have to get the cigarette out of the packet, get the lighter, focus on the tip of the cigarette & the flame while you light it - which affects your vision - & then keep taking your hand off the wheel while you smoke. Smoking negatively effects your concentration (I took part in experiments to test this).
My dad dropped his cig & burnt his bo11ox while he was driving. He could've killed someone.

SRS74 wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote: It's just another daft law which is routinely ignored. How come it is dangerous to use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink but it is legal to have a cigarette with a 1000 degree c tip floating above my groin and it is also ok to waft a cigarette lighter around to light it whilst driving. I do not recall any prosecution for this offence. Also how come a police person can operate their walkie-talkie whilst driving as they don't have hands free. Carry on phoning !! Let's have some consistency with traffic law

In answer to "How come it is dangerous t use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink, but legal to have a cigarette......" The above are instances whereby a driver has been prosecuted for "Not being in proper control of their vehicle" or "Driving without due care and attention" For driving without due care and attention, there has to be evidence of some form of incidence or loss of control (however temporary) or lack of concentration. Not being in proper control of your vehicle would be holding something in your hand, eg drink bottle, sandwich etc, but a cigarette is slightly different in that it would be held in the mouth, takes less concentration to use, but really it comes down to the fact that it has been socially acceptable for longer than driving itself.

This is the point the law is inconsistent and not sustainable in many cases. Whilst you may be right thata prosecution could be brought regarding driving whilst using a mobile, it a) wouldn't be and b) would not be succesful as there is no proof that that the driver was actually driving from a still photo. It is very easy to defend a prosecution regarding the eating of a sandwich - it just depends how much effort you are prepared to make. Having one hand on the wheel whilst munching a mars bar is less dangerous than fiddling with a radio or adjusting a cruise control.

puddingandpi wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote: It's just another daft law which is routinely ignored. How come it is dangerous to use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink but it is legal to have a cigarette with a 1000 degree c tip floating above my groin and it is also ok to waft a cigarette lighter around to light it whilst driving. I do not recall any prosecution for this offence. Also how come a police person can operate their walkie-talkie whilst driving as they don't have hands free. Carry on phoning !! Let's have some consistency with traffic law

It should be illegal to smoke while driving. You have to get the cigarette out of the packet, get the lighter, focus on the tip of the cigarette & the flame while you light it - which affects your vision - & then keep taking your hand off the wheel while you smoke. Smoking negatively effects your concentration (I took part in experiments to test this). My dad dropped his cig & burnt his bo11ox while he was driving. He could've killed someone.

I agree, smoking and lighting a cigarette is considerably more dangerous than any eating, drinking or phoning. I suggest than uncorking a Chateau Le Fit may not be a good idea whilst driving.

Up with the partridge wrote:

SRS74 wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote: It's just another daft law which is routinely ignored. How come it is dangerous to use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink but it is legal to have a cigarette with a 1000 degree c tip floating above my groin and it is also ok to waft a cigarette lighter around to light it whilst driving. I do not recall any prosecution for this offence. Also how come a police person can operate their walkie-talkie whilst driving as they don't have hands free. Carry on phoning !! Let's have some consistency with traffic law

In answer to "How come it is dangerous t use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink, but legal to have a cigarette......" The above are instances whereby a driver has been prosecuted for "Not being in proper control of their vehicle" or "Driving without due care and attention" For driving without due care and attention, there has to be evidence of some form of incidence or loss of control (however temporary) or lack of concentration. Not being in proper control of your vehicle would be holding something in your hand, eg drink bottle, sandwich etc, but a cigarette is slightly different in that it would be held in the mouth, takes less concentration to use, but really it comes down to the fact that it has been socially acceptable for longer than driving itself.

This is the point the law is inconsistent and not sustainable in many cases. Whilst you may be right thata prosecution could be brought regarding driving whilst using a mobile, it a) wouldn't be and b) would not be succesful as there is no proof that that the driver was actually driving from a still photo. It is very easy to defend a prosecution regarding the eating of a sandwich - it just depends how much effort you are prepared to make. Having one hand on the wheel whilst munching a mars bar is less dangerous than fiddling with a radio or adjusting a cruise control.

A photo alone does not prove driving. There would have to be further evidence supplied, such as a written statement from an independent witness for the matter to pass the evidential threshold test.
As for driving whilst committing a specific act whilst driving (otherthan using a mobile phone) such as eating or fiddling with a radio, these would come down to either a) not being in proper control of the vehicle, or b) Driving without due care and attention, but evidence of standard of driving would be needed for the latter.
The act of merely doing something does not make it dangerous just because your driving. Yes, there are inherent dangers to consider, but the standard of driving would have to be affected. Hence why prosecutions for Not being in proper control of a vehicle are easier to prosecute successfully as the evidential threshold test is lower.

SRS74 wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote:

SRS74 wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote: It's just another daft law which is routinely ignored. How come it is dangerous to use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink but it is legal to have a cigarette with a 1000 degree c tip floating above my groin and it is also ok to waft a cigarette lighter around to light it whilst driving. I do not recall any prosecution for this offence. Also how come a police person can operate their walkie-talkie whilst driving as they don't have hands free. Carry on phoning !! Let's have some consistency with traffic law

In answer to "How come it is dangerous t use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink, but legal to have a cigarette......" The above are instances whereby a driver has been prosecuted for "Not being in proper control of their vehicle" or "Driving without due care and attention" For driving without due care and attention, there has to be evidence of some form of incidence or loss of control (however temporary) or lack of concentration. Not being in proper control of your vehicle would be holding something in your hand, eg drink bottle, sandwich etc, but a cigarette is slightly different in that it would be held in the mouth, takes less concentration to use, but really it comes down to the fact that it has been socially acceptable for longer than driving itself.

This is the point the law is inconsistent and not sustainable in many cases. Whilst you may be right thata prosecution could be brought regarding driving whilst using a mobile, it a) wouldn't be and b) would not be succesful as there is no proof that that the driver was actually driving from a still photo. It is very easy to defend a prosecution regarding the eating of a sandwich - it just depends how much effort you are prepared to make. Having one hand on the wheel whilst munching a mars bar is less dangerous than fiddling with a radio or adjusting a cruise control.

A photo alone does not prove driving. There would have to be further evidence supplied, such as a written statement from an independent witness for the matter to pass the evidential threshold test. As for driving whilst committing a specific act whilst driving (otherthan using a mobile phone) such as eating or fiddling with a radio, these would come down to either a) not being in proper control of the vehicle, or b) Driving without due care and attention, but evidence of standard of driving would be needed for the latter. The act of merely doing something does not make it dangerous just because your driving. Yes, there are inherent dangers to consider, but the standard of driving would have to be affected. Hence why prosecutions for Not being in proper control of a vehicle are easier to prosecute successfully as the evidential threshold test is lower.

Ah but it is not an offence to use a mobile phone whilst driving to make a 999 call so maybe all these offenders in Bradford are public spirited and reporting more serious offences.
More seriously, in your wildest dreams, and you are clearly well read in these matters so must be studying for your sergeants' exams as if you were a lawyer you would not be dispensing free advice, do you think anyone is ever going to bring such a prosecution - no, because using the public interest test, "if it aint easy, we won't do it"

So they weren't moving.....they just stopped in the middle of the road to answer their mobile phones?In the city center?Wouldn't that cause traffic to back up and create a traffic jam?
Maybe the headline should have been Mobile Phone Users Stop in City Center and Jam up the Traffic!Because so many stopped!!On double yellow lines?I think NOT!!!

Up with the partridge wrote:

SRS74 wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote:

SRS74 wrote:

Up with the partridge wrote: It's just another daft law which is routinely ignored. How come it is dangerous to use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink but it is legal to have a cigarette with a 1000 degree c tip floating above my groin and it is also ok to waft a cigarette lighter around to light it whilst driving. I do not recall any prosecution for this offence. Also how come a police person can operate their walkie-talkie whilst driving as they don't have hands free. Carry on phoning !! Let's have some consistency with traffic law

In answer to "How come it is dangerous t use a mobile or eat a sandwich or swig a drink, but legal to have a cigarette......" The above are instances whereby a driver has been prosecuted for "Not being in proper control of their vehicle" or "Driving without due care and attention" For driving without due care and attention, there has to be evidence of some form of incidence or loss of control (however temporary) or lack of concentration. Not being in proper control of your vehicle would be holding something in your hand, eg drink bottle, sandwich etc, but a cigarette is slightly different in that it would be held in the mouth, takes less concentration to use, but really it comes down to the fact that it has been socially acceptable for longer than driving itself.

This is the point the law is inconsistent and not sustainable in many cases. Whilst you may be right thata prosecution could be brought regarding driving whilst using a mobile, it a) wouldn't be and b) would not be succesful as there is no proof that that the driver was actually driving from a still photo. It is very easy to defend a prosecution regarding the eating of a sandwich - it just depends how much effort you are prepared to make. Having one hand on the wheel whilst munching a mars bar is less dangerous than fiddling with a radio or adjusting a cruise control.

A photo alone does not prove driving. There would have to be further evidence supplied, such as a written statement from an independent witness for the matter to pass the evidential threshold test. As for driving whilst committing a specific act whilst driving (otherthan using a mobile phone) such as eating or fiddling with a radio, these would come down to either a) not being in proper control of the vehicle, or b) Driving without due care and attention, but evidence of standard of driving would be needed for the latter. The act of merely doing something does not make it dangerous just because your driving. Yes, there are inherent dangers to consider, but the standard of driving would have to be affected. Hence why prosecutions for Not being in proper control of a vehicle are easier to prosecute successfully as the evidential threshold test is lower.

Ah but it is not an offence to use a mobile phone whilst driving to make a 999 call so maybe all these offenders in Bradford are public spirited and reporting more serious offences. More seriously, in your wildest dreams, and you are clearly well read in these matters so must be studying for your sergeants' exams as if you were a lawyer you would not be dispensing free advice, do you think anyone is ever going to bring such a prosecution - no, because using the public interest test, "if it aint easy, we won't do it"

The Police would not follow up on this particular set of incidents, not because of a lack of interest or evidence. Far from it. Both the P.I.T and E.T.T are met at this stage, however, as pointed out, further investigation is required and each driver need speaking to under caution for their response to the allegation. This is further work that would take sometime to complete. This is a summary only offence and considered a minor road traffic offence and therefore would not be justified in proceeding further. This may have an impact on the Public Interest test.
Evidentially, there doesn't seem to be a problem proving the facts so far, so long as you can prove driving and who was driving. Not a hard offence to prosecute.
Majority of investigations are not easy. Coupled with bureaucracy(comments for another post) the difficulty of proving some cases are the challenge some crave.
Oh and the advice comes free;-)

If they're "road safety experts" why are they "alarmed"? The rest of us are well aware of this issue, but aren't really bothered about it...

Brent_Meister wrote:
"The Telegraph & Argus photographed 15 motorists on hand-held phones in the space of only one hour at Jacob’s Well roundabout yesterday." ... So did the T&A give these photos to the Police or were they just regarded (or disregarded) as news-filler?

How did the T&A know the phones were switched on and being used? It's not an offence to hold a mobile phone while driving. Also did they check it wasn't a foreign car and the "driver" wasn't actually the passenger?

Forget about driving whilst on the phone, as one person said why isnt the law extended to smokers or women who apply makeup whilst driving. The first of which I am surprised, cigarettes contains addictive substances and yet we are letting these people drive whilst getting "high". You wouldnt except it if the person was on heroin so why nicotine?
The second is even worse, the women dont even have their eyes on the road at all! I once say a woman driving with her elbows!

All these activities cause dangerous driving. But what about the even worse group of people, the people who knowingly and purposefully drive like maniacs? Again forget the law about mobiles, these drivers do not even follow the legal speed limits. I have continuously seen drivers drive at 40-50mph on 30mph roads! Again as another posted as said this is a daily occurrence, not just once a day but an astounding number of occurrences!

Again as another poster mensioned, it is no surprise this is happening daily as the police refuse to do anything about it. And as for education, many of these people will not learn until you ban them from driving, i.e. they will never learn. They really should not be on the road. How many times do you think these people have probably thought, "I got up 10 minutes late, doesnt matter I'll just do 40 instead of 30". These people are not thinking of the safety of other road user nor pedestrians at all!

webess wrote:

Brent_Meister wrote:
"The Telegraph & Argus photographed 15 motorists on hand-held phones in the space of only one hour at Jacob’s Well roundabout yesterday." ... So did the T&A give these photos to the Police or were they just regarded (or disregarded) as news-filler?

How did the T&A know the phones were switched on and being used? It's not an offence to hold a mobile phone while driving. Also did they check it wasn't a foreign car and the "driver" wasn't actually the passenger?

If someone is talking into a phone that isn't switched on they need arresting and sectioning under the mental health act.
.
I'm sure the T & A aren't stupid enough to be unable to judge if a driver using a phone is also sat infront of a steering wheel.
.
More than calling, drivers that text and drive are a real concern.

Like I've said before, get police officers to drive around in unmarked cars with front and rear video cameras, and then charge the dangerous drivers!

Driving at the legal 30mph speed limit they'd be able to charge someone within the first 5 minutes of leaving the station!

People are shocked by this behaviour?

The T&A obviously needs some headlines to sell the paper. What is amusing however is its failure to acknowledge the elephant in the room for fear of being non PC. What's the next campaign - people crossing at red on pelican crossings? This is not to condone the practice of using a mobile whilst driving but is anyone surprised and what does the T&A expect to achieve? The man in the pub voices similar opinions.

thecitygent wrote:
The T&A obviously needs some headlines to sell the paper. What is amusing however is its failure to acknowledge the elephant in the room for fear of being non PC. What's the next campaign - people crossing at red on pelican crossings? This is not to condone the practice of using a mobile whilst driving but is anyone surprised and what does the T&A expect to achieve? The man in the pub voices similar opinions.

Nah mate, canno be 'n elfunt, thats Hindi iconography innit.

Oops :S

I was nearly taken out yesterday by a bloke ( not a teenager) on the phone who was on the wrong side of the road passing a parked vehicle which was parked causing a blind spot:he was oblivious to me.

He was going far too fast also and having difficulty steering the car.

FOR ALL THOSE WHO INSIST ON USING PHONES WHILST DRIVING LISTEN UP.

One of my grandchildren is now dead:


got it; DEAD !

aged three and crushed to death in his push chair as he slept: a car had gone out of control onto my driveway where the lad dreamed sweet dreams: the driver got out of the car STILL ON THE PHONE!!! priceless !

LISTEN UP YOU DRIVERS; TALK ALL YOU LIKE WHILST DRIVING BUT THAT STUPIDIY COULD COST A LIFE OF THOSE VERY CLOSE TO YOU.

There should be a public information film made showing this sort of horrendous event: USE YOUR MOBILES WHILST DRIVING AND KILL CHILDREN!!

tyker wrote:
I was nearly taken out yesterday by a bloke ( not a teenager) on the phone who was on the wrong side of the road passing a parked vehicle which was parked causing a blind spot:he was oblivious to me. He was going far too fast also and having difficulty steering the car. FOR ALL THOSE WHO INSIST ON USING PHONES WHILST DRIVING LISTEN UP. One of my grandchildren is now dead: got it; DEAD ! aged three and crushed to death in his push chair as he slept: a car had gone out of control onto my driveway where the lad dreamed sweet dreams: the driver got out of the car STILL ON THE PHONE!!! priceless ! LISTEN UP YOU DRIVERS; TALK ALL YOU LIKE WHILST DRIVING BUT THAT STUPIDIY COULD COST A LIFE OF THOSE VERY CLOSE TO YOU. There should be a public information film made showing this sort of horrendous event: USE YOUR MOBILES WHILST DRIVING AND KILL CHILDREN!!

Whilst of course this won't bring your poor grandchild back, I hope that this low life was jailed for a long long time for causing death by dangerous driving.

bigo93 wrote:
Forget about driving whilst on the phone, as one person said why isnt the law extended to smokers or women who apply makeup whilst driving. The first of which I am surprised, cigarettes contains addictive substances and yet we are letting these people drive whilst getting "high". You wouldnt except it if the person was on heroin so why nicotine? The second is even worse, the women dont even have their eyes on the road at all! I once say a woman driving with her elbows! All these activities cause dangerous driving. But what about the even worse group of people, the people who knowingly and purposefully drive like maniacs? Again forget the law about mobiles, these drivers do not even follow the legal speed limits. I have continuously seen drivers drive at 40-50mph on 30mph roads! Again as another posted as said this is a daily occurrence, not just once a day but an astounding number of occurrences! Again as another poster mensioned, it is no surprise this is happening daily as the police refuse to do anything about it. And as for education, many of these people will not learn until you ban them from driving, i.e. they will never learn. They really should not be on the road. How many times do you think these people have probably thought, "I got up 10 minutes late, doesnt matter I'll just do 40 instead of 30". These people are not thinking of the safety of other road user nor pedestrians at all!

bigo93, as I have posted earlier, the law does cover drivers who smoke and those who apply make-up whilst driving. It's called "Not being in a position to have proper control of your vehicle." This covers a whole range of different scenarios. It is relatively minor ie Non endorsable on the driving licence. The reason many do not get prosecuted for this offence is because there are (as published) more offenders committing the more serious offences of using a mobile phone whilst driving.
If applying make-up or smoking a cigarette your standard of driving is affected, then you commit the more serious offence of Driving without due care and attention or worse, Dangerous driving.
The reason Smoking is not singled out as a seperate offence is because it has been socially acceptable longer than driving has and there is nothing to show that smoking routinely effects your driving, unlike using a mobile phone.
As for your comment, "the police refuse to do anything about it." Take a trip to the local Magistrates and see how many of the cases dealt with in Court are for driving offences. Quite astounding I can guarantee. As for those dealt with at the roadside by way of a fixed penalty notice, I'm sure the figure is exceptionally higher.

Up with the partridge wrote:

tyker wrote:
I was nearly taken out yesterday by a bloke ( not a teenager) on the phone who was on the wrong side of the road passing a parked vehicle which was parked causing a blind spot:he was oblivious to me. He was going far too fast also and having difficulty steering the car. FOR ALL THOSE WHO INSIST ON USING PHONES WHILST DRIVING LISTEN UP. One of my grandchildren is now dead: got it; DEAD ! aged three and crushed to death in his push chair as he slept: a car had gone out of control onto my driveway where the lad dreamed sweet dreams: the driver got out of the car STILL ON THE PHONE!!! priceless ! LISTEN UP YOU DRIVERS; TALK ALL YOU LIKE WHILST DRIVING BUT THAT STUPIDIY COULD COST A LIFE OF THOSE VERY CLOSE TO YOU. There should be a public information film made showing this sort of horrendous event: USE YOUR MOBILES WHILST DRIVING AND KILL CHILDREN!!

Whilst of course this won't bring your poor grandchild back, I hope that this low life was jailed for a long long time for causing death by dangerous driving.

No: but that is another story about sentencing and the like but don't get me going on that one. The message is that using a mobile diminishes an ability to drive properly and safely!!

USING A MOBILE IS DANGEROUS: PERIOD; get that message through to the idiots who do it.

so why dont the powers that be talk to the mobile phone manufacturers, where you can set your phone to drive mode, so when someone calls you, a text is sent back to the caller saying that who you are calling is driving, also in the 'app' an alternative number for the caller to contact...ie someone else in the car....If the driver doesnt use this process yes an heavy fine & ban !!!

Up with the partridge wrote:

tyker wrote: I was nearly taken out yesterday by a bloke ( not a teenager) on the phone who was on the wrong side of the road passing a parked vehicle which was parked causing a blind spot:he was oblivious to me. He was going far too fast also and having difficulty steering the car. FOR ALL THOSE WHO INSIST ON USING PHONES WHILST DRIVING LISTEN UP. One of my grandchildren is now dead: got it; DEAD ! aged three and crushed to death in his push chair as he slept: a car had gone out of control onto my driveway where the lad dreamed sweet dreams: the driver got out of the car STILL ON THE PHONE!!! priceless ! LISTEN UP YOU DRIVERS; TALK ALL YOU LIKE WHILST DRIVING BUT THAT STUPIDIY COULD COST A LIFE OF THOSE VERY CLOSE TO YOU. There should be a public information film made showing this sort of horrendous event: USE YOUR MOBILES WHILST DRIVING AND KILL CHILDREN!!

Whilst of course this won't bring your poor grandchild back, I hope that this low life was jailed for a long long time for causing death by dangerous driving.

Hang on a minute, didnt you say earlier, that this is a "Daft Law"?

The truth of the matter is that whilst someone is useing a hand held mobile phone, not only is their concentration distracted, they also do not have full control of the vehicle (you see them regularly changing gear and turning corners with one hand).

This is an absolute shame that this happened by someone abusing this daft law.

Only this morning I have dropped my wife off at work, in the town centre, and I counted 12 people on phones on my way back home. Of these 12, 5 of them were in commercial vehicles. These drivers obviously need their licences to do their jobs, but still they are happy to risk points. Is that because it is a law that is difficult to police, apathy or because the penalty is too low. I think it is probably a mix of all three, but if the penalty was "Loss of licence" then I am sure that a large percentage would invest the £2.50 it costs to buy a hands free wire, or blue tooth headset.....

OK then make your local police force do their job, make the T&A do their job and to force the police to do theirs.
In my locality the police so this. They position an office in plain clothes a distance away from two or three others in uniform. The one in plain clothers is there to observe drivers who are a) on the phone and b) not wearing a belt. He then radios the others just in case the offender drops the phone when he sees the marked car - easy, they catch loads of people.

What else you can do to make to useless police in Bradford sit up is to go to the West Yorkshire Police website and submit a Freedom of Information request. Ask them "how many fixed penalty tickets have been issued in Bradford for mobile phone offences in the past 12 months"

Up with the partridge wrote:
OK then make your local police force do their job, make the T&A do their job and to force the police to do theirs.
In my locality the police so this. They position an office in plain clothes a distance away from two or three others in uniform. The one in plain clothers is there to observe drivers who are a) on the phone and b) not wearing a belt. He then radios the others just in case the offender drops the phone when he sees the marked car - easy, they catch loads of people.

What else you can do to make to useless police in Bradford sit up is to go to the West Yorkshire Police website and submit a Freedom of Information request. Ask them "how many fixed penalty tickets have been issued in Bradford for mobile phone offences in the past 12 months"

In our area they sot on top of large vehicles visible to all hundred so f yards away: everyone sees them and phones are dropped so the police then report there is no problem.

statistics produced by the police in our locality show minimal use of phones but everyone knows these stats are totally wrong but how can you argue that the basis of the statistical collection is wrong.

COME ON:

SEE A DRIVER ON THE MOBILE AND GIVE HIM A BLAST ON YOUR HORN:SIGN TO HIM/HER YOU HAVE SEEN IT AND REPORT IT..

Using mobile phones whilst driving can result in an accident and may even cause death by dangerous driving. I'm glad I got caught early and it changed my behaviour because I have had a few near misses which would have been much worse than a fine. Using a mobile phone divides your attention making driving unsafe.

I live almost opposite a school and regularly see motorists using their mobiles, driving past whilst the kids are coming out of school.
One of the worst was an adult smoking AND on his mobile ,who had just picked up a car-full of kids (none were wearing seatbelts) and he almost hit 2 kids crossing the road - if that's how much notice they take of the law, what chance is there?
How he intended to change gear I don't know!