Isn’t the issue the ability to police the behavior? Anything other than making specific actions illegal means you are putting law enforcement under the pressure of having to make subjective decisions every time. The inability to be consistent in “upholding the law” would see most cases thrown out with a lawyer present. IMHO.
But I also agree with the stupidity of rules that make it illegal for me to TOUCH my phone but quite ok to fiddle with the sat nav or search for music.
it begins to sound akin to thought control - the Swiss have an interesting approach sometimes. Winter tyres would sound like absolute necessities in snow bound Alpine Winters. So the required behaviour would be to fit Winter tyres obligatory under law.
And yet, it is not illegal (not to use Winter tyres) and even the tread depth minimum is only 1.8 mm.
HOWEVER, should you be involved in an accident when Winter tyres would be the desired tyre, the law assumes it is YOUR FAULT. Likewise the tread depths, if something happens and your tread depth is not much more (I forget the mms), the insurers apply sanctions (or something, I forget exactly how that works, but suffice to say no one works to the legal 1.8mm, they use the bigger numbers and look at you strangely if you adhere to the 1.8mm; so I comply of course, like everyone).
In addition there is MASSIVE (helpful) peer pressure to fit WInter tyres in Winter, IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACES. You will be having a quiet coffee in one of the cafes and various passers by will gently remind you to fit your Winter tyres.
All of the above avoids applying sanctions when no harm has been done. However, when harm is done the law acts, the consequences are such that society is influenced in its behaviour and in the application of pressure to those who would not toe the line.
These methods are both effective AND accepted by society, and do not being law enforcement in to disrepute.
My point is that there ARE other ways and harming businesses and families who have done no harm, while bringing law enforcement in to disrepute is NOT NECESSARY. That is before we examine who profits from it and whether lives (KSI) are saved or not.
However, to explore other ways first requires acceptance that humans do not respond well to force when no harm is done, if you want to modify behaviour you are better engaging the co-operation of society and not making an enemy of it.
Sometimes power can consume goodness.
Search Club Site Search Techtalk
Isn’t the issue the ability to police the behavior?
New South Wales are starting a trial using cameras and image analysis:
Unfortunately if we had the Swiss attitude here I think most people will just say,” it will never happen to me” . But I applaud the idea of social pressure rather than fining everyone. Changing attitudes is the hard part.
when I did Driver’s Education in High School there were two deterrents that I remember clearly. One was a film we all had to sit through which was taken by a cameraman who travelled with a first responder to car accidents. Actual film, nothing hidden. Full grief. Full carnage
the second was ( like Switzerland) you were not required to pass Drivers Education classes. But if you didn’t then your insurance was about $1,000 a year ( at 16) rather than $100.
As someone who spent a lot of time working from my car for many years, I fell into bad habits early and it is only in the last few years that I will not touch my phone whilst driving
and JK, in our state we have red light cameras at intersections that also will get you for speeding or phone use. It’s like Yul Brenner said,” Don’t smoke”. See, I still remember those ads
"Using specially adapted, unmarked HGV cabs, officers will patrol the M25 and record drivers of all types of vehicles committing mobile phone or other safety offences that are the leading cause of many accidents."
Are they using HGV cabs in order to get a better view into the target vehicle?
I am not sure which programme it was on "daytime tv" but I saw police officers in a HGV cab. In the particular case I saw the police caught a HGV driver texting. S
Ah... so from an HGV can they can see into cars, vans and other HGV cabs. That would explain it.
Step closer to closing the loophole...
But it's bonkers isn't it ? Only an idiot would use a phone most of the time , but if I've been stuck in motionless traffic on the motorway for ten minutes, why shouldn't I use the phone, let alone pick it up ? And if I get done for that , how come the guy in heavy traffic at 70 mph who buggers around with his touch screen settings on his Tesla is not also guilty automatically of an offence? Strict liability offences (ie if you committed the proscribed act , you're guilty , regardless of circumstances ) are often ill thought through , and this new one is no exception.
Context is all - if you are driving carelessly , or dangerously , then take the consequences but , we don't really have road traffic police any more do we ? So I can drive at 70 mph in thick fog in heavy traffic and get away with it , but if I do 80mph on the same road at 4 am on a June morning the S Camera will identify me as a dangerous criminal ... Only ourselves to blame though in passively accepting surveillance everywhere we go.
It does seem to be an odd choice, so that I can legally press a couple of buttons on my built in touch screen in the car to change a radio station when my phone is mirrored using Android Auto, but not press the same buttons in the same way on my phone screen if its in a holder.
Midlife crisis begun....