Mobile phones

[Rolyan]

t does appear strange that the official line is that something is safe and legal, but that they also want to ban it...

Hmmm, that's stretching it a bit. Just because the current law hasn't caught up with recent research doesn't mean 'the official line is it's safe and legal'.

Like Rolyan, I also can't seen how a complete block could be implemented without effecting passengers use of phones - which wouldn't be fair or reasonable.

How is that stretching it a bit Martin? The official line from the government is that hands free mobiles are legal to use in a vehicle, because they are safe to use. So why would that same government then want to make it illegal to use them, saying that they are unsafe.

I'm not arguing from a personal viewpoint, I'm just puzzled how to day it is currently deemed safe and legal to use a mobile (emphasis again on hands free, to stop the thread being hijacked), but they are also having discussions with car manufacturers to ban the use of them (the proposal would stop all calls, even the current safe and legal hands free ones). That's strange however you look at it, to me at least.

However, since I honestly cannot ever see this being implemented in the way its being discussed, we probably don't have to worry too much.

[Rolyan]

We could also ban people called Mark. No particular reason, just that fewer drivers equals safer roads and you have to start somewhere. .

No way. The only driver I know called Mark is an excellent driver, officially tested to a very high standard.

There again I once saw him at an IAM meeting and his fashion sense left a lot to be desired, so perhaps we can ban the use of satnavs when wearing a tie with a worsted jacket.

[jont-]

How is that stretching it a bit Martin? The official line from the government is that hands free mobiles are legal to use in a vehicle, because they are safe to use. So why would that same government then want to make it illegal to use them, saying that they are unsafe.

Erm, why have we got the non-sequitur that legal=safe? In fact, in a nutshell that identifies exactly the problem with the current approach to road safety. Rather than simply prosecute more widely for DWDCA, we now have so many point laws, that drivers assume something will be banned if it unsafe, rather than having to apply some judgement, and the law being an outer envelope. Ever lower speed limits is another example of this (with no attention at all being paid to unsafe driving within the speed limit, and the outcome being ever lower limits ).

I'd much rather have an absolutely minimal law set - "don't be a dick". What else do we /really/ need?

[akirk]

I don't think we are necessarily saying legal=safe

perhaps though dealing with the manufacturers to manage symptoms of something that is legal in order to tackle something illegal is not really the government's job...

Alasdair

[Strangely Brown]

I don't think we are necessarily saying legal=safe

Perhaps you missed this bit:

The official line from the government is that hands free mobiles are legal to use in a vehicle, because they are safe to use.

Sounds like he is saying exactly that.

[akirk]

I don't think we are necessarily saying legal=safe

Perhaps you missed this bit:

The official line from the government is that hands free mobiles are legal to use in a vehicle, because they are safe to use.

Sounds like he is saying exactly that.

surely that is saying as it is safe it is legal
not
as it is legal, it is safe

2 totally different things

Alasdair

[Matt1962]

There is absolutely zero chance of phones being immobilised whilst in cars. Politically it would be a non-starter and technically it is impossible (even if it wasn't, think of the retro-fitting and single country issue costs). I have no idea why government departments come up with such nonsense?

[Strangely Brown]

I don't think we are necessarily saying legal=safe

Perhaps you missed this bit:

The official line from the government is that hands free mobiles are legal to use in a vehicle, because they are safe to use.

Sounds like he is saying exactly that.

surely that is saying as it is safe it is legal
not
as it is legal, it is safe

2 totally different things

You are correct, my mistake <slaps self>. They are, of course, two different things. However...

The reason that they are legal is not "because they are safe" - studies so far show the opposite to be true - but almost certainly because to make them illegal would be impossible to police. You would only ever "catch someone" after there was cause to check the call logs or carrier records.

[waremark]

We could also ban people called Mark. No particular reason, just that fewer drivers equals safer roads and you have to start somewhere. .

No way. The only driver I know called Mark is an excellent driver, officially tested to a very high standard.

There again I once saw him at an IAM meeting and his fashion sense left a lot to be desired, so perhaps we can ban the use of satnavs when wearing a tie with a worsted jacket.

Would this be about anyone I know?

[Jonquirk]

Dilbert is apposite
http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-12-23