Fines Fail To Curb Cell Phone Usage While Driving

andylim writes "An in-depth study of over 14,000 London drivers by the Transport Research Laboratory has found an increase in the number of London motorists making and taking calls using their handsets at the wheel between 2008 and 2009, even though harsher penalties were introduced in 2007. It seems that most people, at least in London, still don't respect the fact that there's a much higher risk of being involved in an accident if you're using your cell phone."

Comments

It's not the fines....

[cptdondo]

It's the enforcement. We have really, really high fines here for all sorts of traffic violations, but enforcement is so lacking that it almost seems random. Your chances of getting caught are miniscule, so people learn to ignore the law. If they do get caught, the fines are staggering - but the one in ten thousand chance of getting caught is not a deterrent.

Re:It's not the fines....

[jimicus]

Convicted multiple times of driving while intoxicated?!

Here in the UK you'd be very lucky to still have a driving licence after that. I believe the typical punishment for being caught once is a year's ban.

Re:It's not the fines....

[haruharaharu]

Driving is not a right.

It's open to anyone who can demonstrate ability and only revocable if you show yourself to be a danger to others. Sounds like a right to me.

Re:It's not the fines....

[epee1221]

Driving is not a right.

Driving is also not probable cause.

Re:It's not the fines....

[Anonymous Coward]

Penalties for impaired driving tend to be much less in the US than other nations, although the variance between states is a factor to a certain extent.

I was involved in an accident in Minneapolis; while waiting at a traffic light I was rear ended by an impaired driver who was trying to elude police at the time. The cop, who arrived on the scene within seconds, told me she was going 50 mph when she hit me.

It was her fifth impaired driving charge over a 4 year period, and she was able to get comprehensive insurance (which is the one way US drivers do face sanctions for this behaviour); I was covered by her policy (although I was well insured as well).

She would not be legally driving had she been in Canada; had she managed to squeak past the minimum driving bans of 3 months/6 months/1 year the fourth would have added a minimum 1 year ban under the most lenient penalty, provided you lived in one of the three provinces that allow it, do plenty of stints in rehab and bad driver's school, and provided she wasn't driving her own vehicle, since it would have an ignition interlock installed.

In six others she would be under a lifetime ban that she might have been able to reduce to 10 years, after serving the 10 year portion, doing plenty of rehab and bad driver's school, and installing an ignition interlock.

In Ontario she would have been under a lifetime ban, reducable to 10 years, after the third, but the fourth is irrevokable.

In each case she would have served the minimum jail times: 30 days for the second, 4 months for each subsequent conviction.

It's possible to have longer jail terms imposed; in fact in her case it would be almost impossible to avoid considering the time elapsed between offenses. Practically speaking she probably would have avoided jail on the first offense, and probably would have had the minimum on the second. They would not take kindly to the third, and where I live a six to 12 month term would be typical. The fourth would likely involve a 18-24 month sentence, again just referring to typical sentencing in my community.

The fifth, when she hit me, would be nasty. Since she could not possibly have a drivers license even under the most lenient jurisdiction, it would be a charge of Driving While Suspended and since there were injuries, Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm.

DWS carries identical penalties to Impaired Driving, and IDCH is a somewhat more serious offense ... up to 10 years in prison, although 24 to 36 months would be the typical range where I live for a driver with her record).

She would also be dealing with an insurance company suing to recover all damages it paid on her behalf for any accidents she may be involved in; your coverage is revoked if you are impaired at the time of an accident. Her driving license and insurance would cost thousands of dollars each to renew annually.

Where I live, she would have had a prohibitive number of demait points on her license after the second conviction (10 per conviction; your license can be suspended at 20. You need 1 year of penalty-free driving to have demarits reduced by 1, a feat she never would have managed). This means her annual drivers license would include the maximum surcharge for 21 years after her first conviction, and would take 40 years of zero at-fault accidents, traffic tickets, and criminal driving convictions to be reduced to zero. It's likely the maximum surcharge would increase at some point over the next 21 years, but currently it's $500 a year.

The ignition interlock costs $300 to install; $100 a month while it's installed, and another $300 to remove.

Re:It's not the fines....

[HiThere]

Training won't suffice. If the police are acting as you describe, then they are being unsafe drivers. Divided attention means MUCH less attention to each part. You need the attention to do each part, and you also need some attention to manage the coordination. (This isn't just theoretical, there's also experimental evidence.)

Re:It's not the fines....

[Ash Vince]

Actually it's not the fines or enforcement. It's training. Every police vehicle I've seen has a laptop mounted on the center console. Every time I see a cop driving around they have one hand on the keyboard and constantly glance back and forth between the road and the computer.

I am guessing you are from the states. Here in the UK we keep our police in pairs when on patrol in vehicles. This means the guy in the passenger seat can use his radio or whatever, the driver can concentrate on driving.

The parent poster is spot on though, there are very high fines for driving while on a mobile but the police are reluctant to throw the book at motorists for it unless they happen to be behind you for half a mile without you noticing and hanging up.

Re:It's not the fines....

[macshit]

the public transportation is so poor that most people would be unable to function without driving. They would quickly lose their job and become homeless. This certainly isn't true for many cities,

Name one outside NYC.

In the U.S., places I've personally lived without a car, without any problem: Boston, Seattle, Pittsburgh, ...

Places where I haven't lived, but where friends have lived without a car, without any problem: Chicago, Portland (Oregon), San Francisco, ...

Outside the U.S., of course, decent public transportation tends to be the norm rather than the exception.

Risk Homeostasis?

[z4ce]

The number of cell phones in use as exponentially increased in the last decade. Where is the graph showing fatalities going through the roof due to this? Oh whats that? They've actually slightly went down?

Maybe its not such a big deal after all. Maybe the government should just.. ya know.. do nothing.

Nope, makes no sense even in mourning

[SuperKendall]

I'd bet the farm you're naive attitude would Disappear after some drunk asshole killed your family.

Why should it? When I know whatever law was passed wouldn't have prevented it anyway, I wouldn't turn to the idea of "more government" for solace. Honestly I don't know what I would do, but again since I know it wouldn't stop anything that would literally be the last thing to occur to me to think of. Things like MADD and all started with a good intention but as always it's a noose that draws tighter around everyone, and saves no-one - at least from the laws they have passed. What does help are the awareness programs, spreading the notion of "designated driver", etc (which MADD has also championed). They should have stuck with doing things that helped.

If we couldn't make a totally global ban on all alcohol work (prohibition) no law is going to stop one guy from drinking - especially not the guy who drinks too much anyway. Those are the guys that get in fatal accidents.