Mo Salah driving while on mobile

[tiger76]

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... h-15025789 OK! it's not the crime of the century but it's a bit stupid,unless of course Real or Barca where getting in touch.

[Likeavydra]

as far as I could see he was stood still.

[dsr]

I think the most shocking thing of all is the advert on that link, for a toilet operated by a remote control handset.

[KRBFC]

Mobile video it says, a little different to putting the phone to his ear though?

[dsr]

In law, sitting in a stationery vehicle looking at a mobile phone screen is exactly the same offence, and usually carries the same punishment, as driving at 70 on the motorway dialling the number by hand. It's using a mobile phone while driving, and it's 3 points. Unlike gymnastics and diving, there is no adjustment for the degree of difficulty.

Technically speaking, and probably in actual fact as well, you can be stuck in a traffic jam for 10 minutes with no prospect of moving. But if you send a text message while the engine is running, you're guilty of using a mobile phone while driving; even though the gear lever is in neutral and the handbrake is on.

[HunterST_BFC]

In law, sitting in a stationery vehicle looking at a mobile phone screen is exactly the same offence, and usually carries the same punishment, as driving at 70 on the motorway dialling the number by hand. It's using a mobile phone while driving, and it's 3 points. Unlike gymnastics and diving, there is no adjustment for the degree of difficulty.

Technically speaking, and probably in actual fact as well, you can be stuck in a traffic jam for 10 minutes with no prospect of moving. But if you send a text message while the engine is running, you're guilty of using a mobile phone while driving; even though the gear lever is in neutral and the handbrake is on.

Exactly - If you are in the driving seat, on the road and motor running (or off in trafic .. eg Merc's etc that shut down on "stop" and "restart" when tapped) - the driver can not be on a mobile.

A friend of mine got clattered by an idiot texting while driving. Culprit is still driving.

I'd go with a mandatory 3 year driving ban.

[Burnleyareback2]

Seems to be the work of another sly scouser who wants to rip of the club and put children’s lives at risk.

[cricketfieldclarets]

In law, sitting in a stationery vehicle looking at a mobile phone screen is exactly the same offence, and usually carries the same punishment, as driving at 70 on the motorway dialling the number by hand. It's using a mobile phone while driving, and it's 3 points. Unlike gymnastics and diving, there is no adjustment for the degree of difficulty.

Technically speaking, and probably in actual fact as well, you can be stuck in a traffic jam for 10 minutes with no prospect of moving. But if you send a text message while the engine is running, you're guilty of using a mobile phone while driving; even though the gear lever is in neutral and the handbrake is on.

Rightly so really. You still need to be observant even if you arent moving.

Its a crime that needs severe penalties. Coming from someone who has used his phone at the wheel. Its ridiculously dangerous.

Companies should also face prosecution if they have drivers who offend /repeat when on works time.

[dsr]

Exactly - If you are in the driving seat, on the road and motor running (or off in trafic .. eg Merc's etc that shut down on "stop" and "restart" when tapped) - the driver can not be on a mobile.

A friend of mine got clattered by an idiot texting while driving. Culprit is still driving.

I'd go with a mandatory 3 year driving ban.

Actually my point was the other way. If you're in a stationary car with the handbrake on and your feet off the pedals, you're not very likely to have an accident and glancing at a phone in those circumstances is no more dangerous than looking at a map, your front or rear seat passengers, or having a drink. It's using a phone while moving that causes real danger.

[Down_Rover]

A friend of mine was banned for drink driving while eating fish and chips in his car in a car park with the engine off. He had no intention of driving, merely sheltering from the rain.

he was convicted because he was drunk in charge of the vehicle

[FactualFrank]

he was convicted because he was drunk in charge of the vehicle

Common sense needs to play a part as well. Which is probably why he was convicted...

[Blackrod]

I see plenty of van drivers and young female drivers texting whilst driving. I bang my horn at them and it doesn't half make them jump. Lots of points or bans are needed. I'm sure a phone will be developed that can't be used while driving.

[JohnMac]

Maybe he was ringing the Police for help because his car was surrounded by people and he feared for his own safety.

[Mayoclaret]

Why do some people insist on using a hand held mobile phone when their car is inevitably fitted with blue tooth hands free? Are they too thick to fathom out how it works or too full of their own importance to worry about the potential implications of their own actions? Rant over!

[Rick_Muller]

I drive a lot.

Every journey whether it’s 5 minutes round the block or 200 miles to Burnley I can guarantee that I will see a driver holding their phone whilst driving. It is criminal that people do this.

I nearly fell out with my son because he phoned his girlfriend whilst she was driving - he’s 18, and so is she and she’s only recently passed her test. They didn’t even talk, apparently (this is according to them) she likes the comfort that he is “in the car with her” while she is driving. Ironically she had a minor bump when they did this the other week, and I didn’t have to say a word - didn’t stop me though. It is partially a generation thing, younger people have grown up with phones and tech and think they know best, they don’t.

I have used a phone while driving, 15 years ago I was expected to for my job - I hated it, it gave me headaches with the additional concentration required to do it. It was hands free then, and I would never have been able to text whilst driving. We need more severe punishments for doing this, but it needs to be appropriate.

In regards to Mo Salah, I’ve seen the footage - what he did is not dangerous - it’s more to do with his mindset, he’ll think if he can do it while stationary then it’ll be fine at 10mph, then 20mph, before you know it it’s at 100mph and he’s driven a family off the M6...

[1968claret]

I'm sure a phone will be developed that can't be used while driving.

Latest IOS software for iPhones already detects when you are driving and shuts off all notifications (other than calls which can be answered hands free).
You can probably change the settings so that it doesn’t do this, though why you would want to do this I don’t know.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Latest IOS software for iPhones already detects when you are driving and shuts off all notifications (other than calls which can be answered hands free).
You can probably change the settings so that it doesn’t do this, though why you would want to do this I don’t know.

If you were a passenger in a car perhaps...

[1968claret]

If you were a passenger in a car perhaps...

Of course yes. But you can just turn it off then whenever you are a passenger.
The point I was making is that, as a driver, the facility is there to remove the temptation to use your phone.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Of course yes. But you can just turn it off then whenever you are a passenger.
The point I was making is that, as a driver, the facility is there to remove the temptation to use your phone.

I agree. Should be instant ban IMO.

Currently there isnt a sufficient deterrent. As daft as it sounds, 12 points and a huge ban and fine would be more of a deterrent than an accident. Which is sad but true.

[dsr]

I agree. Should be instant ban IMO.

Currently there isnt a sufficient deterrent. As daft as it sounds, 12 points and a huge ban and fine would be more of a deterrent than an accident. Which is sad but true.

But it needs to be proportionate. As it stands, it's the same penalty for looking at a phone while sat it a traffic jam or at a traffic light, as it is for dialling a number while driving at speed. Even glancing at a map on a phone being used as a satnav (unless the phone is stuck to the dashboard) while waiting for the lights to change, is considered to be the same offence - though doing exactly the same action with a non-phone satnav is legal.

[cricketfieldclarets]

But it needs to be proportionate. As it stands, it's the same penalty for looking at a phone while sat it a traffic jam or at a traffic light, as it is for dialling a number while driving at speed. Even glancing at a map on a phone being used as a satnav (unless the phone is stuck to the dashboard) while waiting for the lights to change, is considered to be the same offence - though doing exactly the same action with a non-phone satnav is legal.

Blanket penalty IMO. Saves any ambiguity on what is a seriously dangerous offence. 'I was only looking at the map at 105mph'...

[Hendrickxz]

Followed a green tractor forwhat felt like miles over the Padiham by-pass at about 6.45 last night (yes, you know who you are!) On his phone with a young girl standing beside him as "passenger" Bloody ridiculous...

[JohnMac]

Blanket penalty IMO. Saves any ambiguity on what is a seriously dangerous offence. 'I was only looking at the map at 105mph'...

To be fair, I think the 105mph would negate anything else...

[dsr]

Blanket penalty IMO. Saves any ambiguity on what is a seriously dangerous offence. 'I was only looking at the map at 105mph'...

Should this apply to all motoring offences? Driving ban for 31 mph just as it is for 200 mph? And how about other offences too - should burglary have the same penalty as shoplifiting?

[Rick_Muller]

Been thinking about this since I posted a reply earlier where I stated that the punishment should be appropriate.

Perhaps a scaled punishment going through stages depending upon the detail of your offence, so for example being caught with your phone in your hand whilst in control of a motor vehicle could be a 3 month ban and revokation of your full licence - in order to drive again you would need to pass your test again. Moving up the scale, say for instance actually having an accident whilst using your phone could be a 3 year ban, revokation of licence and you have to pass an advanced test with a focus on distractions whilst driving before you can drive again.

It is a crime with currently no real deterrent it appears, points and fines don’t matter to a lot of people - they won’t learn from that - make them have to pass another test, that would take thought and application to do.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Should this apply to all motoring offences? Driving ban for 31 mph just as it is for 200 mph? And how about other offences too - should burglary have the same penalty as shoplifiting?

Drink driving whether 2 pints over or 10 pints over should be the same penalty
Driving on your phone whether at 30 or 70 should be the same penalty. If the 70 is in a 50 then they should be further punished for that offence too.

Driving on a phone regardless of how fast should be instant ban end of.

[joey13]

A friend of mine was banned for drink driving while eating fish and chips in his car in a car park with the engine off. He had no intention of driving, merely sheltering from the rain.

he was convicted because he was drunk in charge of the vehicle

Did he have the car keys in his possession?

[Dyched]

Some can of device could be created so that when somebody is sat in the drivers seat on the phone they automatically soil themselves and a balloon pops out of the car so we all know the guilty parties

[Down_Rover]

Did he have the car keys in his possession?

he didn't say but I doubt he would break into his own car

[Long Time Lurker]

In hand, bluetooth ban them all.

It isn't just the hands free element thats the problem it is the concentration split. If you aren't fully focussed on driving you are putting other peoples lives at risk.

The vast majority of calls aren't essential, taking time to stop and get out of the car to make a call is no big deal. And if if a person isn't prepared to do that it is because their call isn't that important.

I would be happy if a location check was made when a tower was pinged. No information needs to be taken other than the phone number. After five seconds another check is made and if the distance travelled between the first ping and the second ping is greater than a reasonable walking distance (and the phone isn't on a train line) the phone cuts off.

People on buses could suffer, but no solution is perfect.

[dsr]

I would be happy if a location check was made when a tower was pinged. No information needs to be taken other than the phone number. After five seconds another check is made and if the distance travelled between the first ping and the second ping is greater than a reasonable walking distance (and the phone isn't on a train line) the phone cuts off.

In other words, make it illegal for anyone in a car, driver or passenger, to use a phone? Bit draconian.

How are we going to ring the Radio Lancashire phone-in with Guy Havard?

[Long Time Lurker]

In other words, make it illegal for anyone in a car, driver or passenger, to use a phone? Bit draconian.

How are we going to ring the Radio Lancashire phone-in with Guy Havard?

Exactly, its part of my hardline three step plan.

The second step is to ban stereos and headrest DVD's.

The third step is a strict no talking policy, with mandatory 3 year jail sentences for kids that say "are we there yet"

[dsr]

Exactly, its part of my hardline three step plan.

The second step is to ban stereos and headrest DVD's.

The third step is a strict no talking policy, with mandatory 3 year jail sentences for kids that say "are we there yet"

I like that third policy. It would tie in quite nicely with my proposal that parents who say "if you do that again, you can get out and walk" are legally entitled - nay, legally obliged - to carry out the threat as and when justified.

[Garforth Claret]

On the M62 today I beeped my horn at a woman who was struggling to drive and text at the same time. In return for pointing out the error of her ways I got two fingers and f##k off. I was near Hull though.

[bobinho]

Companies should also face prosecution if they have drivers who offend /repeat when on works time.

No they shouldn't.

Whilst I understand that vicariously the company can be held partly responsible for an individuals actions DESPITE the individuals being specifically told not to do them, this is most definitely one point of law that needs addressing. If the company trains, educates and informs its employees of the company rules, regulations and policies, and it can prove it has, then it should not be liable for those individuals deliberately flouting those rules, regulations and policies. It's just plain wrong.

[bobinho]

Did he have the car keys in his possession?

I have some knives in the kitchen...

[joey13]

he didn't say but I doubt he would break into his own car

Ignorance is not a virtue