Tougher punishments for inconsiderate driving

[Sonic27]

I don't see what all the fuss is about.
The offence is careless driving, or driving without due care and attention.
All that has happened is they have made the offence a fixed penalty offence, in much the same way as speeding or overtaking on double white lines etc.
It's not a NEW law, its always been there, they have just added the option of it being dealt with by a ticket.

 

[Ricardo_e220]

While i like most agree in principle, it does seem a 'law' there only for when needed.
(what happened to highways 'rules' or 'codes'? Now its become a law.
I dont get it??

The problem with middle lane hoggers, with out getting in to arguments or debates, is rather blinkered.
I totally agree people should keep left. But so so often getting trapped or boxed in by a slow moving traffic stream or finding yourself suddenly in a lane thats about to turn off, can be equally dangerous. As it means you if unfamiliar with the road will need to hop in to the middle lane amongst faster moving traffic, when you can, and also means others will no doubt be doing the same.
There are times when planning ahead and 'apparently' sitting in an empty middle lane is safer than following the letter of the 'law'.

But I doubt if revenue collectors will ever see it that way.

I would argue that anticipation would mean you don't end up 'boxed in'

Just driven down the m1 tonight and even at 1130pm the number of dawdlers in the middle of a dead quiet road is ridiculous, so I was forced to make 3 lane moves to pass and 3 lanes back..... Cos undertaking is illegal.....

There are next to no coppers out on the motorway so it's another case of nonsense.

 

[Warrior]

I've always found middle lane cruisers irritating and a damned nuisance, this is well overdue, I don't do so many motorway miles now since I moved to the IOM but on my trips over I still find myself getting annoyed with them.

Cruising the middle lane effectively shuts one lane of the motorway and causes a log jam for overtaking traffic by forcing everyone coming up behind into the outside lane when the left hand lane is empty.

The government have spent millions of pounds opening some sections of motorway up with a fourth lane to ease congestion, so what do the middle lane brigade do? they move over and cruise in lane three on those bits completely negating the benefit of the extra lane!!

It really is a pet hate of mine.

 

[d215yq]

Doesn't the left hand help the right hand to hold the steering wheel, operate indicators/wipers etc.?

Mine does.

Not on a w124 designed specifically so you don't use the left hand. the one stalk is on the right and the left just puts the car in D and sits there, occasionally helping with tight manouvres (instances where a phone should not be used).

Calling for a 3 month ban for trivial things is stupid. If we care about road safety then length of ban should be proportional to danger caused. The trouble is the things that cause the most danger tend to be unmeasurable things like carelessness, skill and common sense, and measurable things we all do like speeding. But we don't like to call for bans on those things because we might get caught out ourselves.

 

[properwounded]

I thought the w124's were that way because they couldn't be bothered to put it the normal way when they made the cars for the uk market, just a straight plonk everything on the left, to the right and link up the inbetween?

 

[properwounded]

And the w126's are the same

 

[mikestrivens]

The outside lane should be the sole preserve of the W140 and cars of a similar kind.

 

[cleverdicky]

Not forgetting the fat oaf Prescot had his own private lane for himself from the proletariat.

 

[Developer]

Calling for a 3 month ban for trivial things is stupid. If we care about road safety then length of ban should be proportional to danger caused. The trouble is the things that cause the most danger tend to be unmeasurable things like carelessness, skill and common sense, and measurable things we all do like speeding. But we don't like to call for bans on those things because we might get caught out ourselves.

And post 12?

 

[Frontstep]

As I said I think the offences will be "policed" by camera and become a healthy income stream.
It does have some merit though.
All those traffic camera systems will be easy to programme for tailgaiting and middle lane hogging.

 

[d215yq]

And post 12?

Depends on the situation, having an old school phone with real buttons i can text with one hand without looking down at all, in fact I'd spend more time with my eyes off the road changing the radio station. However using some fiddly smartphone at a complex roundabout/junction is only going to end in tears and would deserve a ban (based on current dangerous driving rules, not some arbitrary law)

It's a bit of a knee jerk reaction to just call for a ban for something that isn't necessarily dangerous. Do we really want a nation of banned drivers all driving illegally or losing their jobs/having their lives upset because of some arbitrary rules that aren't proportional to the true danger caused.

As I never speed much and see driving above 70mph as a complete waste of fuel effort/fuel and obviously the faster you drive the more danger you pose when things all go wrong, maybe i should just ask for a 3 month ban for everyone who's ever sped regardless as to the actual danger this causes?

 

[Clkrichard]

Depends on the situation, having an old school phone with real buttons i can text with one hand without looking down at all, in fact I'd spend more time with my eyes off the road changing the radio station. However using some fiddly smartphone at a complex roundabout/junction is only going to end in tears and would deserve a ban (based on current dangerous driving rules, not some arbitrary law)

It's a bit of a knee jerk reaction to just call for a ban for something that isn't necessarily dangerous. Do we really want a nation of banned drivers all driving illegally or losing their jobs/having their lives upset because of some arbitrary rules that aren't proportional to the true danger caused.

As I never speed much and see driving above 70mph as a complete waste of fuel effort/fuel and obviously the faster you drive the more danger you pose when things all go wrong, maybe i should just ask for a 3 month ban for everyone who's ever sped regardless as to the actual danger this causes?

Are you seriously defending texting while driving ? Thats unbelievable .......

 

[Developer]

Topically, and just by coincidence, I had a call yesterday from a guy who I use from time to time (I'm being deliberately vague here).

He explained that he hadn't been around much because he was recovering from depression.

He's a 65 year old professional and at the start of the year he'd been involved in a head on crash.

He'd drifted onto the wrong side of the road, on a bend, straight into the front of another car.

Both were written off, but both occupants were ok as they were driving modern cars.

He's racked with guilt, because he knows it was entirely his fault.

He was replying to a text, querying where he was, as he was late for an appointment

 

[d215yq]

Are you seriously defending texting while driving ? Thats unbelievable .......

I assume you are totally against changing radio station then too as it takes less looking away from the road for me to text than to change radio station?

I'm against dangerous driving. I could also tell a story about how someone died because of excess speed, etc, and then suggest anyone is shot doing over 80mph (as clearly this is more dangerous than 70).

Instead I realise that on some occasions it's fine to do 80mph, similarly that in some occasions (if you don't need to look and can touch text) it's ok to text or use the phone.

The devil is in the detail and arbitrary bans are unfair and don't work, they generally penalise sensible, law abiding people who are taking care but technically breaking the law. Those that are reckless and don't care continue regardless and therefore the whole thing is ineffective. It's the same for drink driving rules, speeding fines, continuous insurance rules. Just revenue raisers most of the time. we don't need any more arbitrary bans!

 

[Clkrichard]

All I can say is that if you also condone drink driving and having no insurance I am glad you are in Spain !
You just cannot equate texting to changing radio stations, which most of us now do with steering wheel controls.
You might not think drinking and driving is so clever if you kill someone while driving under the influence, or if one of your loved ones is killed or injured by a drunk driver.
The law may be an ass but at least it offers us some potential protection from the irresponsible

 

[d215yq]

All I can say is that if you also condone drink driving and having no insurance I am glad you are in Spain !
You just cannot equate texting to changing radio stations, which most of us now do with steering wheel controls.
You might not think drinking and driving is so clever if you kill someone while driving under the influence, or if one of your loved ones is killed or injured by a drunk driver.
The law may be an ass but at least it offers us some potential protection from the irresponsible

I haven't said i condone any of the above. I disapprove of anyone causing danger to anyone. However, when driving there are many things that CAN increase danger caused by a significant factor. Such as excessive drink driving, text driving in some circumstances, excessive speed, etc.

The punishment should fit the danger caused. There are members on here who boast of 120mph, etc. That to me is more dangerous than 2 pints and driving home or texting by hand (which for me takes less effort than changing a station).My point isn't about not punishing those causing danger, it's about relating the punishment to the danger caused based on the circumstances, not arbitrary laws that don't factor this in.

Less arbitrary laws, more application of the facts in each case (as other countries' legal systems seem to work on) is the way to improve the justice and safety of everyone. Surely this is pretty obvious stuff or do the british population really only see things in black and white...text while driving and you're bad but change CDs talk to passengers, don't pay much attention but as long as you're insured and taxed and none of these are illegal so it's ok?
Because that's what policing is becoming. A checklist against arbitrary laws and paperwork rather than a sensible, experienced traffic cop handing out advice, fines and court summons based on the standard of driving. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Clkrichard]

"The devil is in the detail and arbitrary bans are unfair and don't work, they generally penalise sensible, law abiding people who are taking care but technically breaking the law. Those that are reckless and don't care continue regardless and therefore the whole thing is ineffective. It's the same for drink driving rules, speeding fines, continuous insurance rules. Just revenue raisers most of the time. we don't need any more arbitrary bans!"


We will have to agree to differ then on our view of whether the law on texting while driving or on drink driving are mostly "revenue raisers" and cause "arbitrary" bans. Its not hard to avoid either and not get banned ! Those laws exist to protect the rest of us from the terminally stupid and I am glad they are there

 

[RobWheatley]

The trouble is we HAVE to have rules and laws for the road that are arbitrary, how could the law be enforced or explained if:
its OK to text whilst on a straight bit of road if you dont have to look at the phone and you can touch type but NOT driving round a bend.
People will just push it, "oh it was only a slight bend" or "the roundabout wasnt busy and i HAD to finish the text" or "I didnt notice the kid I just splattered as I was checking the Text was sent but I'm allowed to do that if I can text am I not?" or "how was I to know my tyre was going to burst and make me swerve into to car full of kids, I was ONLY text my mate about the football/going to the pub"

As far as the new fines and penalties, GREAT, I am fed up with the Ar**holes that sit in the middle (or 3rd of 4) lane doing 50mph coz THEY want to save petrol and are not worried at all about the 50 cars having to slow down and queue behind trying to get past at the correct speeds for the road as it saved THEM having to slow down, also the di**heads that have their hand flat to their ear pretending that they are NOT making a call whilst steering with their knee/elbow and changing gear with the other hand. I for one don't think they go far enough, the fines should be more as should the points.

I also think there should be a ZERO limit for drink drive, no if's or but's, you have a drink you cannot drive, at the moment some people will try and drink to the limit (or what they think is the limit) and still be unfit to drive, that way there can be no excuses for them killing your wife, husband, daughter, son etc

 

[turbopete]

The trouble is we HAVE to have rules and laws for the road that are arbitrary, how could the law be enforced or explained if:
its OK to text whilst on a straight bit of road if you dont have to look at the phone and you can touch type but NOT driving round a bend.
People will just push it, "oh it was only a slight bend" or "the roundabout wasnt busy and i HAD to finish the text" or "I didnt notice the kid I just splattered as I was checking the Text was sent but I'm allowed to do that if I can text am I not?" or "how was I to know my tyre was going to burst and make me swerve into to car full of kids, I was ONLY text my mate about the football/going to the pub"

As far as the new fines and penalties, GREAT, I am fed up with the Ar**holes that sit in the middle (or 3rd of 4) lane doing 50mph coz THEY want to save petrol and are not worried at all about the 50 cars having to slow down and queue behind trying to get past at the correct speeds for the road as it saved THEM having to slow down, also the di**heads that have their hand flat to their ear pretending that they are NOT making a call whilst steering with their knee/elbow and changing gear with the other hand. I for one don't think they go far enough, the fines should be more as should the points.

I also think there should be a ZERO limit for drink drive, no if's or but's, you have a drink you cannot drive, at the moment some people will try and drink to the limit (or what they think is the limit) and still be unfit to drive, that way there can be no excuses for them killing your wife, husband, daughter, son etc

I seem to recall reading an article somewhere that said a zero limit would be impossible to have, due to the fact that our bodies contain traces of it, and many sauces on food contain it!

imagine how you would feel if you got a driving ban just for eating a trifle, or chicken in white wine sauce etc. then what? you cant drive after having a MEAL? im not condoning anything, merely asking 'where do you draw the line?'

 

[mikestrivens]

The trifles my mum made would have been equivalent to about 10 large gin and tonics, with all the spirit that they contained.