A road safety organisation has come under fire for its latest campaign, which urges cyclists to wear a helmet and has been criticised for "victim-blaming" and failing to tackle road danger "at source".

Bedfordshire Road Safety Partnership — a group "working together to reduce road casualties" and is made up of representatives from the council, police, fire and rescue and the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner — launched the campaign, which
has since been shared on Road Safety GB's website, a national road safety organisation.

In the video (link is external), which can be viewed on the Bedfordshire group's website, viewers are shown an animated story of a cyclist called Ted, who didn't wear a helmet on his head. "Whilst riding real quick, he hit a big stick, and now he's in a
hospital bed," the rhyme ends.

The campaign was also shared on Road Safety GB's website, the national road safety organisation that is run in association with THINK! and representatives from groups across the UK, including local government road safety teams.

Road Safety GB said the campaign aims to make wearing a helmet "the norm", drawing on comparison with Australia where helmet use is mandatory and cyclists breaking the rules can be fined.

It was also revealed that all schools in Bedfordshire have been sent the resources to add to their social media accounts and pass on to parents in newsletters.

Promoting the three-week campaign, a spokesperson told Road Safety GB: "We are trying to make wearing a helmet the norm, as it is in Australia. To do so, we are targeting all age groups to change their habits – as has happened with the wearing of
seatbelts over the years."

The campaign was shared on social media by one Twitter (X) user simply saying, "Oh dear", while another joked about the comparison to Australia a country "famous for so much cycling".

Another reply shared a link to an Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report which showed one in five people injured on Australian roads and paths is a cyclist while the rate of hospitalisation for cyclists increased by 1.5 per cent per year over
the 17-year period of the report, 4.4 per cent year-on-year in the final six years of the report.

"If this approach works why do the stats show cycling is getting more dangerous in Australia? Stop victim-blaming and tackle road danger at source," they said. "If you really want to make the roads safer for people on bikes campaign for proper
infrastructure. Helmets and personal protective equipment are not and never will be the answer."

The reply also tagged England's cycling and walking commissioner Chris Boardman, who famously said back in 2014 that helmets are "not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe"

In June, an Irish children's hospital consultant spoke out making the case for cyclists to be legally required to wear a helmet, arguing accident and emergency units see a spike in crash-related injuries during the summer months.

The UK government has repeatedly shut down occasional calls for cyclists to be required to wear a helmet, most recently in December of last year when a minister of state from the Department of Transport said the matter had been considered "at length"
during the cycling and walking safety review in 2018.

They said: "The safety benefits of mandating cycle helmets for cyclists are likely to be outweighed by the fact that this would put some people off cycling, thereby reducing the wider health and environmental benefits. The Department recommends that
cyclists should wear helmets, as set out in the Highway Code, but has no intention to make this a legal requirement."

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-helmet-campaign-prompts-victim-blaming-call-304081

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

[…]

Another reply shared a link to an Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare report which showed one in five people injured on Australian
roads and paths is a cyclist while the rate of hospitalisation for
cyclists increased by 1.5 per cent per year over the 17-year period of
the report, 4.4 per cent year-on-year in the final six years of the report.

"If this approach works why do the stats show cycling is getting more dangerous in Australia?

‘Do they?’ might be a good question.

Presumably these ‘statistics’ were uncritically swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the authors of this article?

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-helmet-campaign-prompts-victim-blaming-call-304081

Quelle surprise! It’s road.cc!

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

There once was a cyclist named Mandy,
Who was plowed down by a speeding Audi,
The driver got off Scot-free,
As Mandy's children mourned she
Who died and was blamed so unfairly.

She wore something bright,
Had two working lights,
With polystyrene MIPS fitted tight!
Alas! No helmet would change
The two-ton impact by Shane,
Who said,
'honest, Guv, I ain't to blame.'

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

There once was a cyclist named Mandy,
Who was plowed down by a speeding Audi,
The driver got off Scot-free,
As Mandy's children mourned she
Who died and was blamed so unfairly.

She wore something bright,
Had two working lights,
With polystyrene MIPS fitted tight!
Alas! No helmet would change
The two-ton impact by Shane,
Who said,
'honest, Guv, I ain't to blame.'

That’s poor, in both theme and construction.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It's amazing how the effectiveness of helmets is so exagerated in the minds on the faithful. The number of people whose lives have been saved by helmets according to annecdote far exceeds the number of cyclists who were dying to head injuries before
helmets.

So either most people "who would have died" without a helmet would not actually have died.

OR

Drivers are now knocking cyclists down far more frequently safe in the knowledge that their helmets protect them.

Do you wear a helmet when out walking? why not? head injuries per billion km are higher for pedestrians than for cyclists.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

A road safety organisation has come under fire for its latest campaign,
which urges cyclists to wear a helmet and has been criticised for "victim-blaming" and failing to tackle road danger "at source".

The campaign was shared on social media [which contained] a link to an Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report which showed one in
five people injured on Australian roads and paths is a cyclist while the
rate of hospitalisation for cyclists increased by 1.5 per cent per year
over the 17-year period of the report, 4.4 per cent year-on-year in the
final six years of the report.

Note that the link wasn’t given in the road.cc’s article.

Note also that it mentions an increase in cyclist casualties without also mentioning whether cycling had increased over the period of the report, or
road traffic had done likewise.

The uncritical-of-thinking might mistakenly get the impression from these omissions that cycling in Australia had become more dangerous. In reality,
if cycling had increased by a greater proportion than casualties,
Australian cycling would have become safer. But, of course, in the
perverted thinking of the cycling media, this may have been unwelcome news
and hence the lack of relevant data.

A similar argument applies if the unmentioned increase in road traffic had
also outpaced cycling casualties.

"If this approach works why do the stats show cycling is getting more dangerous in Australia? Stop victim-blaming and tackle road danger at source," they said.

You will now note how the limited figures published have been traduced by
the unsupported assumption that cycling in Australia is getting more
dangerous.

The reply also tagged England's cycling and walking commissioner Chris Boardman, who famously said back in 2014 that helmets are "not even in
top 10 of things that keep cycling safe"

“We can point to who we have killed (through lack of a safety helmet) but
we cannot point to anyone that has been saved (through the use of a safety helmet)”.

On that basis, Boardman is despicable for saying what he did.

In June, an Irish children's hospital consultant spoke out making the
case for cyclists to be legally required to wear a helmet, arguing
accident and emergency units see a spike in crash-related injuries during
the summer months.

Which of course comes as no surprise.

The UK government […] said: "The safety benefits of mandating cycle
helmets for cyclists are likely to be outweighed by the fact that this
would put some people off cycling, thereby reducing the wider health and environmental benefits.

And where is this analysis, that infers that some cyclists will die just so others might cycle without a helmet?

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-helmet-campaign-prompts-victim-blaming-call-304081

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

It's amazing how the effectiveness of helmets is so exagerated in the
minds on the faithful. The number of people whose lives have been saved
by helmets according to annecdote…

If you are going to use ‘annecdote’ as evidence, it might help if you spelled it correctly.

…far exceeds the number of cyclists who were dying to head injuries before helmets.

So either most people "who would have died" without a helmet would not actually have died.

By piling supposition upon supposition, any desired result can be gained.

OR

Drivers are now knocking cyclists down far more frequently safe in the knowledge that their helmets protect them.

Do you wear a helmet when out walking? why not? head injuries per billion
km are higher for pedestrians than for cyclists.

Pedestrians perform far more trips in a year than cyclists, 235 to 20, and
so are 12 times as likely to suffer collisions.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In 2019, there was an interesting dispute between the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). While looking at the latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), NTSB became concerned that traffic deaths are still rising. So the NTSB - people who usually research crashes around planes, trains, and automobiles - recommended that all 50 states implement bicycle helmet laws. Though injury and
fatality numbers increased for all modes, NTSB's recommendation did not include helmets for drivers or pedestrians and only recommended mandatory helmets for cyclists. Either NTSB does not like drivers and pedestrians as much, or is really, really
concerned about cyclists.

NTSB has not cared much about bicycle safety since 1972, so the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) first had to catch them up on the science: "Experience has shown that while bike helmets can be protective, bike helmet laws are
not. NACTO strongly urges NTSB to remove the recommendation that states adopt mandatory helmet laws and work with their federal and state partners to enshrine the remainder of this critical, timely, and well-researched report into practice."

To understand this disagreement between NTSB, NACTO, and NHTSA, we can look to other countries that have extensively researched this topic. For this topic, we best enter The Commonwealth of Nations or at least four of their countries: New Zealand,
Australia, the U.K., and Canada. Since they all speak English and all have very similar 'cultures,' there is a lot of comparable research available. Australia and New Zealand were the first countries to introduce helmet laws in the early 1990s. Canada
has some regions with similar policies; in the U.S. and U.K., there is a lot of bike helmet bullying going on. Researchers have been able to draw many conclusions from their results ever since, and that's why not too many countries have these laws.
Cycling U.K. put together a great summary, and so did various other researchers.
Old British Bicycle Helmet Standard (BS6863, 1987)

The old standards for cycle helmets said: "Cycling helmets are intended to give protection in the kind of accident in which the rider falls onto the road without other vehicles being involved."
This implies that helmets are of little value when the cyclist collides with a motor vehicle.
EU Standard (EN 1078)

Bicycle helmets are a weird compromise between strength and weight. Protecting against hitting a flat surface or hitting a curb requires different designs. The old British Standard was the strong one; subsequent standards have been progressively weakened
due to lobbying by the manufacturers themselves.
And even with standards, there is always a very good chance you own the wrong one or use it for too long already.
Safety Statistics

Looking at the statistics behind Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI), it turns out cycling is far from being the most dangerous activity. Most TBI-related cases happen to car drivers, passengers and people hit by motorists. People are just tripping and
falling everywhere. Apparently, people are falling out of bed and injuring their brains. A lot of TBI cases have to do with guns.

It turns out that if Safety were the big concern behind helmet laws, helmet laws would have to include driving, walking, and everyone living in a home with a gun. Especially in the U.S., those activities seem more dangerous than cycling.

Commonwealth Research Facts:

U.K.: "Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the number of fatal head injuries as cyclists."

Australia: "proportion of head injuries requiring hospitalization was about the same for cyclists (27.4%) as for drivers (26%) and less than pedestrians (33.3%)"

U.K.: "cycling accounted for 10% of child traumatic brain injury (TBI) admissions, but pedestrians accounted for 36%, while falls accounted for 24%"

Australia: "cycling without a helmet carried only slightly more risk of death or serious injury per hour than driving"

Germany: "report from 2009 found that the rate of serious head injuries amongst cyclists, pedestrians and car occupants is similar"

Canada: "Bike helmet laws got more people wearing them, but did little to reduce the rate of serious, hospital-worthy injury. In fact, helmet use had almost no effect at all"

Denmark: "compared with pedestrian and car occupant injuries, cycling injuries result in the shortest hospital stays and are least likely to be serious"

Do Sports Helmets work?

There is even better science available about helmet wearing contact sports. It turns out that helmets don't help much there, either. The results are, in fact, so devastating that the Mercury News just recently called for the ban of tackle football. The
link between Parkinson's Disease and boxing was already established. But football players also have a 61% greater risk. Playing football increases the chance of CTE by 15% every year.
And other sports, like baseball, rugby, lacrosse, soccer, and wrestling, aren't much safer either. If helmets made a difference, it certainly does not show in high school sports or college. And professional sports are even worse; out of 111 NFL brains,
110 were found to have CTE that led to aggression, depression, and suicide.
All these guys were wearing helmets of higher quality than cycling helmets.
The Law of Unintended Consequences

Colin Clarke (Cycling U.K.) asked, "Why does the Netherlands, with hardly any cycle helmet wearing have a fatality rate of 8 per billion kms cycled, the U.K. with 21 and the USA with 49?" He concluded that "The emphasis on helmets is unscientific and,
more importantly, damages cycling and blocks the kind of cycling policy and infrastructure in successful cycling cities, e.g. Freiburg, Delft, Lund, Copenhagen or Muenster." Colin Clarke refers to the fact, that bicycle helmet laws led to a 36% drop in
people cycling, leading to fewer injuries overall. However, looking deeper into the data led to the conclusion that helmeted people's injuries actually increased.

Researchers from various countries kept coming to similar conclusions. Professor Piet de Jong, Dr. Kay Teschke, Dr. Harry Hutter, Dr. Ian Walker, and many others uncovered the following facts:


Experienced cyclists felt a false sense of security, rode faster and harder and gained more injuries.

Bicycle helmet laws suppressed bicycle usage in NZL, AUS, and CAN by up to 60%.

Female riders, children, seniors, and minorities were turned away by mandatory helmet wearing

Commonwealth Research Facts:

Canada: "In some instances, helmeted cyclists ride faster, elevating the risk of a crash; in others, drivers feel they can drive closer to riders with helmets than riders without them, also raising the likelihood of calamity. In none of the studied
scenarios was the possibility of serious injury reduced by helmet laws."

U.K.: "Helmeted cyclists suffer 14% more collisions per mile travelled than non-wearers"

Australia "In several cases young children were being hanged by their bicycle straps."

Boston: "… individuals with documented helmet use were found to have 1.85 times the odds of non–helmet users of being involved in an injury-related accident,"

California: "The prevalence of significant head trauma was 35% in the group of patients with helmet and 34% in the group without helmets. The prevalence of all significant trauma was 26% in the group of patients with helmet and 20% in the group
without helmets. The overall mortality was 1%. There was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted patients."

U.K. hospital study: "There was a statistically significant increase in chest, spinal, upper and lower limb injury in the helmeted group in comparison with the non-helmet group." For example, 10.7% of helmeted cyclists suffered serious spine injuries,
compared to 5.4% of unhelmeted cyclists.

Canada: "For traffic-related injury causes, higher cycling mode share was consistently associated with lower hospitalization rates. Helmet laws were not associated with hospitalization rates for brain, head, scalp, skull, face or neck injuries."


Health Benefits of Cycling

It turns out cycling without a helmet is actually better for your health than not cycling at all.

Here is what Cycling U.K. found out:

"By contrast, the risks of cycling are not exceptionally high, and are very small relative to the health benefits. You are in fact as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as in a mile of walking. The Government has endorsed estimates that the
health benefits outweigh the risks of cycling by a factor of 20:1."

Britain's roads aren't very bicycle-friendly. If the U.K. achieves a ratio of 20:1, how much better are countries with better bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes) like The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany?
Conclusions

Should you be using a bicycle helmet?

This should be a personal decision based on perceived risk. But anyone who feels very strongly about Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) should also be wearing motorist helmets, kitchen helmets, gardening helmets, bathtub helmets, and window-cleaning helmets -
as these and other activities seem way more dangerous. But whatever people choose, they should never call anybody else out for not wearing a helmet. These people might just be following the correct science.

Should there be a bicycle helmet mandate of any kind?

Absolutely not: "The relatively small risks of cycling do not remotely justify banning any age group from cycling without a helmet, while mass helmet use has not in practice been found to materially reduce those risks. What is clear is that enforced
helmet legislation would suppress cycle use and that the lost health benefits alone would be a severe net cost to society.

At a time of mounting concern over the twin crises of obesity and climate change, the last thing we should be doing is forcing yet more people, especially children, into car-dependent and sedentary lifestyles."

https://www.rwcpulse.com/blogs/peeking-at-plans/bike-helmets-01-7533472

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26/09/2023 07:23, Simon Mason wrote:

In 2019, there was an interesting dispute between the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). While looking at the latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA), NTSB became concerned that traffic deaths are still rising. So the NTSB - people who usually research crashes around planes, trains, and automobiles - recommended that all 50 states implement bicycle helmet laws. Though injury and
fatality numbers increased for all modes, NTSB's recommendation did not include helmets for drivers or pedestrians and only recommended mandatory helmets for cyclists. Either NTSB does not like drivers and pedestrians as much, or is really, really
concerned about cyclists.

NTSB has not cared much about bicycle safety since 1972, so the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) first had to catch them up on the science: "Experience has shown that while bike helmets can be protective, bike helmet laws

are not. NACTO strongly urges NTSB to remove the recommendation that states adopt mandatory helmet laws and work with their federal and state partners to enshrine the remainder of this critical, timely, and well-researched report into practice."

To understand this disagreement between NTSB, NACTO, and NHTSA, we can look to other countries that have extensively researched this topic. For this topic, we best enter The Commonwealth of Nations or at least four of their countries: New Zealand,

Australia, the U.K., and Canada. Since they all speak English and all have very similar 'cultures,' there is a lot of comparable research available. Australia and New Zealand were the first countries to introduce helmet laws in the early 1990s. Canada
has some regions with similar policies; in the U.S. and U.K., there is a lot of bike helmet bullying going on. Researchers have been able to draw many conclusions from their results ever since, and that's why not too many countries have these laws.
Cycling U.K. put together a great summary, and so did various other researchers.

Old British Bicycle Helmet Standard (BS6863, 1987)

The old standards for cycle helmets said: "Cycling helmets are intended to give protection in the kind of accident in which the rider falls onto the road without other vehicles being involved."
This implies that helmets are of little value when the cyclist collides with a motor vehicle.
EU Standard (EN 1078)

Bicycle helmets are a weird compromise between strength and weight. Protecting against hitting a flat surface or hitting a curb requires different designs. The old British Standard was the strong one; subsequent standards have been progressively

weakened due to lobbying by the manufacturers themselves.

And even with standards, there is always a very good chance you own the wrong one or use it for too long already.
Safety Statistics

Looking at the statistics behind Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI), it turns out cycling is far from being the most dangerous activity. Most TBI-related cases happen to car drivers, passengers and people hit by motorists. People are just tripping and

falling everywhere. Apparently, people are falling out of bed and injuring their brains. A lot of TBI cases have to do with guns.

It turns out that if Safety were the big concern behind helmet laws, helmet laws would have to include driving, walking, and everyone living in a home with a gun. Especially in the U.S., those activities seem more dangerous than cycling.

Commonwealth Research Facts:

U.K.: "Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the number of fatal head injuries as cyclists."

Australia: "proportion of head injuries requiring hospitalization was about the same for cyclists (27.4%) as for drivers (26%) and less than pedestrians (33.3%)"

U.K.: "cycling accounted for 10% of child traumatic brain injury (TBI) admissions, but pedestrians accounted for 36%, while falls accounted for 24%"

Australia: "cycling without a helmet carried only slightly more risk of death or serious injury per hour than driving"

Germany: "report from 2009 found that the rate of serious head injuries amongst cyclists, pedestrians and car occupants is similar"

Canada: "Bike helmet laws got more people wearing them, but did little to reduce the rate of serious, hospital-worthy injury. In fact, helmet use had almost no effect at all"

Denmark: "compared with pedestrian and car occupant injuries, cycling injuries result in the shortest hospital stays and are least likely to be serious"

Do Sports Helmets work?

There is even better science available about helmet wearing contact sports. It turns out that helmets don't help much there, either. The results are, in fact, so devastating that the Mercury News just recently called for the ban of tackle football. The

link between Parkinson's Disease and boxing was already established. But football players also have a 61% greater risk. Playing football increases the chance of CTE by 15% every year.

And other sports, like baseball, rugby, lacrosse, soccer, and wrestling, aren't much safer either. If helmets made a difference, it certainly does not show in high school sports or college. And professional sports are even worse; out of 111 NFL brains,

110 were found to have CTE that led to aggression, depression, and suicide.

All these guys were wearing helmets of higher quality than cycling helmets. The Law of Unintended Consequences

Colin Clarke (Cycling U.K.) asked, "Why does the Netherlands, with hardly any cycle helmet wearing have a fatality rate of 8 per billion kms cycled, the U.K. with 21 and the USA with 49?" He concluded that "The emphasis on helmets is unscientific and,

more importantly, damages cycling and blocks the kind of cycling policy and infrastructure in successful cycling cities, e.g. Freiburg, Delft, Lund, Copenhagen or Muenster." Colin Clarke refers to the fact, that bicycle helmet laws led to a 36% drop in
people cycling, leading to fewer injuries overall. However, looking deeper into the data led to the conclusion that helmeted people's injuries actually increased.

Researchers from various countries kept coming to similar conclusions. Professor Piet de Jong, Dr. Kay Teschke, Dr. Harry Hutter, Dr. Ian Walker, and many others uncovered the following facts:

Experienced cyclists felt a false sense of security, rode faster and harder and gained more injuries.

Bicycle helmet laws suppressed bicycle usage in NZL, AUS, and CAN by up to 60%.

Female riders, children, seniors, and minorities were turned away by mandatory helmet wearing

Commonwealth Research Facts:

Canada: "In some instances, helmeted cyclists ride faster, elevating the risk of a crash; in others, drivers feel they can drive closer to riders with helmets than riders without them, also raising the likelihood of calamity. In none of the

studied scenarios was the possibility of serious injury reduced by helmet laws."

U.K.: "Helmeted cyclists suffer 14% more collisions per mile travelled than non-wearers"

Australia "In several cases young children were being hanged by their bicycle straps."

Boston: "… individuals with documented helmet use were found to have 1.85 times the odds of non–helmet users of being involved in an injury-related accident,"

California: "The prevalence of significant head trauma was 35% in the group of patients with helmet and 34% in the group without helmets. The prevalence of all significant trauma was 26% in the group of patients with helmet and 20% in the group

without helmets. The overall mortality was 1%. There was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted patients."

U.K. hospital study: "There was a statistically significant increase in chest, spinal, upper and lower limb injury in the helmeted group in comparison with the non-helmet group." For example, 10.7% of helmeted cyclists suffered serious spine

injuries, compared to 5.4% of unhelmeted cyclists.

Canada: "For traffic-related injury causes, higher cycling mode share was consistently associated with lower hospitalization rates. Helmet laws were not associated with hospitalization rates for brain, head, scalp, skull, face or neck injuries."

Health Benefits of Cycling

It turns out cycling without a helmet is actually better for your health than not cycling at all.

Here is what Cycling U.K. found out:

"By contrast, the risks of cycling are not exceptionally high, and are very small relative to the health benefits. You are in fact as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as in a mile of walking. The Government has endorsed estimates that the

health benefits outweigh the risks of cycling by a factor of 20:1."

Britain's roads aren't very bicycle-friendly. If the U.K. achieves a ratio of 20:1, how much better are countries with better bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes) like The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany?
Conclusions

Should you be using a bicycle helmet?

This should be a personal decision based on perceived risk. But anyone who feels very strongly about Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) should also be wearing motorist helmets, kitchen helmets, gardening helmets, bathtub helmets, and window-cleaning

helmets - as these and other activities seem way more dangerous. But whatever people choose, they should never call anybody else out for not wearing a helmet. These people might just be following the correct science.

Should there be a bicycle helmet mandate of any kind?

Absolutely not: "The relatively small risks of cycling do not remotely justify banning any age group from cycling without a helmet, while mass helmet use has not in practice been found to materially reduce those risks. What is clear is that enforced

helmet legislation would suppress cycle use and that the lost health benefits alone would be a severe net cost to society.

At a time of mounting concern over the twin crises of obesity and climate change, the last thing we should be doing is forcing yet more people, especially children, into car-dependent and sedentary lifestyles."

https://www.rwcpulse.com/blogs/peeking-at-plans/bike-helmets-01-7533472

B O R I N G

And now many years old.

If you don't want to look like a tit*, no-one ss forcing you to.

You do it voluntarily.

[* Remember that short-lived newby who was the only fairy-cyclist here
ever to admit that real reason for chavs on bikes not wanting to wear a
safety helmet?]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Nope don't wear a helmet when walking I do wear a coat and hat if it looks like rain though. Only hit my head once while walking when I was a boy I walked into a lamppost while chatting to my father.
Well as well as the consultant the copper also thought it saved my life so you who know very little about this are heavily outweighed by those that have seen the accident and what was left of the helmet.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

In 2019, there was an interesting dispute between the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO).

So, US based, where their roads and laws are not necessarily the same as others.

NTSB has not cared much about bicycle safety since 1972, so the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) first had to catch
them up on the science: "Experience has shown that while bike helmets can
be protective, bike helmet laws are not. NACTO strongly urges NTSB to
remove the recommendation that states adopt mandatory helmet laws and
work with their federal and state partners to enshrine the remainder of
this critical, timely, and well-researched report into practice."

What does NACTO mean when using the term ’Experience’?

To understand this disagreement between NTSB, NACTO, and NHTSA, we can
look to other countries that have extensively researched this topic.

Why? Other countries have different roads, roads systems, applicable laws, different cultural and social attitudes.

For this topic, we best enter The Commonwealth of Nations or at least
four of their countries: New Zealand, Australia, the U.K., and Canada.
Since they all speak English and all have very similar 'cultures,'

What an appallingly bad set of criteria!

Perhaps they are four countries separated by a different language.

US cars have hoods, trunks, run on gas, and roll over a lot; other
countries cars have bonnets, boots, and run on petrol.

there is a lot of comparable research available. Australia and New
Zealand were the first countries to introduce helmet laws in the early
1990s. Canada has some regions with similar policies; in the U.S. and
U.K., there is a lot of bike helmet bullying going on.

The inherent basis for the bias in this article could be expressed less
nakedly and less savagely. But the opportunity to pass over an over-egging
of the cake obviously was foregone.

Researchers have been able to draw many conclusions from their results
ever since, and that's why not too many countries have these laws.
Cycling U.K. put together a great summary, and so did various other researchers.

Cycling UK…a bastion of evenhandedness?

Old British Bicycle Helmet Standard (BS6863, 1987)

The old standards for cycle helmets said: "Cycling helmets are intended
to give protection in the kind of accident in which the rider falls onto
the road without other vehicles being involved.”

This implies that helmets are of little value when the cyclist collides
with a motor vehicle.

This implies that helmets are of little value when the cyclist collides
with other things, such as lampposts, trees, walls, gates, Armco,
pedestrians, other cyclists, and the like.

EU Standard (EN 1078)

Bicycle helmets are a weird compromise between strength and weight. Protecting against hitting a flat surface or hitting a curb requires different designs.

Those assertions certainly need to be explained.

The old British Standard was the strong one; subsequent standards have
been progressively weakened due to lobbying by the manufacturers themselves.

And the evidence for lobbying by helmet manufacturers to weaken standards is…?

And even with standards, there is always a very good chance you own the
wrong one or use it for too long already.

Kindly enumerate this ‘very good chance’.

Safety Statistics

Looking at the statistics behind Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI), it turns
out cycling is far from being the most dangerous activity. Most
TBI-related cases happen to car drivers, passengers and people hit by motorists.

In the light of the fact that nearly a thousand people a year are killed by falling down steps and stairs, implying many more suffer injuries such as
TBI - and that is just one everyday activity undertaken by the vast
majority of the population - some breakdown of whatever data supports the quoted assertion might help the case being made, such as it is.

People are just tripping and falling everywhere.

Puffery.

Apparently, people are falling out of bed and injuring their brains. A
lot of TBI cases have to do with guns.

Now what country has the goalposts been shifted to?

It turns out that if Safety were the big concern behind helmet laws,
helmet laws would have to include driving, walking, and everyone living
in a home with a gun. Especially in the U.S., those activities seem more dangerous than cycling.

In the US, there are more guns than people. Are there more bicycles than people?

Apples and oranges spring to mind.

[Selected?] Commonwealth Research Facts:

U.K.: "Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the
number of fatal head injuries as cyclists."

But there are 10x the number of drivers, and 20x the number of pedestrians, than cyclists!

Apples and oranges spring to mind.

Australia: "proportion of head injuries requiring hospitalization was about the same for cyclists (27.4%) as for drivers (26%) and less than pedestrians (33.3%)"

The UK data mentioned fatalities, the Australian data speaks of head
injuries.

Apples and oranges spring to mind.

U.K.: "cycling accounted for 10% of child traumatic brain injury
(TBI) admissions, but pedestrians accounted for 36%, while falls accounted for 24%"

Yet another shift of the goalposts.

Australia: "cycling without a helmet carried only slightly more risk
of death or serious injury per hour than driving"

The conclusion being what, exactly?

Germany: "report from 2009 found that the rate of serious head
injuries amongst cyclists, pedestrians and car occupants is similar"

‘The rate’ meaning what? Per trip? Per hour? Per mile?

Canada: "Bike helmet laws got more people wearing them, but did
little to reduce the rate of serious, hospital-worthy injury. In fact,
helmet use had almost no effect at all"

Then helmets are worth wearing, aren’t they!

Denmark: "compared with pedestrian and car occupant injuries, cycling injuries result in the shortest hospital stays and are least likely to be serious"

That’s because the speed of cyclists is so low.

Wait until the 20mph limits kick in, and cycling casualties as a rate, go
up. What will the cyclists have won?

Do Sports Helmets work?

There is even better science available about helmet wearing contact sports.

‘Better science available’?

One hasn’t seen any science yet, merely a collection of numbers that bear little relationship to each other, dressed up an an argument.

It turns out that helmets don't help much there, either. The results are,
in fact, so devastating that the Mercury News just recently called for
the ban of tackle football.

That might be a useful comparison if cyclists fell off their bicycles and bumped their head as frequently as contact-sportspeople do. Otherwise, it’s just apples and oranges again.

The link between Parkinson's Disease and boxing was already established.
But football players also have a 61% greater risk. Playing football
increases the chance of CTE by 15% every year.

And? Where was Parkinson’s ever mentioned as a risk for cyclists?

And other sports, like baseball, rugby, lacrosse, soccer, and wrestling, aren't much safer either. If helmets made a difference, it certainly does
not show in high school sports or college.

Parkinson’s is a fairly rare disease in school children or college
students.

Is there a point to this irrelevant section of this article?

A difference And professional sports are even worse; out of 111 NFL
brains, 110 were found to have CTE that led to aggression, depression, and suicide.
All these guys were wearing helmets of higher quality than cycling helmets.

But ask yourself, since when was cycling in everyday life a body-contact
sport?

Someone is comparing apples and oranges.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Colin Clarke (Cycling U.K.) asked, "Why does the Netherlands, with hardly
any cycle helmet wearing have a fatality rate of 8 per billion kms
cycled, the U.K. with 21 and the USA with 49?"

Where did Colin Clarke of Cycling UK get his figures from?

Holland: 17.2 million people, 207 cycle deaths:
12 cycle deaths per million (UK: 1.6 cycle deaths per million)

On a population basis, Holland is a dangerous place to cycle.

By mileage cycled:
Holland: 15bn km cycled, 207 cycle deaths:
13.8 deaths per billion km cycled or 
22 deaths per billion miles cycled
(UK: 22 deaths per billion miles cycled)

On a mileage cycled basis, there is no difference in death rates between Holland and the UK.

Researchers from various countries kept coming to similar conclusions. Professor Piet de Jong, Dr. Kay Teschke, Dr. Harry Hutter, Dr. Ian
Walker, and many others uncovered the following facts:

Experienced cyclists felt a false sense of security, rode faster and harder and gained more injuries.

This is the point where a recognised cycling training scheme could help, to overcome the macho attitude so prevalent in at least some areas of cycling.

Bicycle helmet laws suppressed bicycle usage in NZL, AUS, and CAN by up to 60%.

There’s so many that just don’t want to look like tits, do they?

It’s another facet of the macho image so beloved of some cyclists.

Female riders, children, seniors, and minorities were turned away by mandatory helmet wearing

Compulsory helmets didn’t stop women competing in the W formula for racing open-wheel cars.

Commonwealth Research Facts:

Canada: "In some instances, helmeted cyclists ride faster, elevating
the risk of a crash; in others, drivers feel they can drive closer to
riders with helmets than riders without them, also raising the likelihood
of calamity. In none of the studied scenarios was the possibility of
serious injury reduced by helmet laws."

Canadian cyclists need a recognised training scheme to overcome the
problems of the macho image.

U.K.: "Helmeted cyclists suffer 14% more collisions per mile
travelled than non-wearers"

UK cyclists need a recognised training scheme to overcome the problems of
macho image.

Australia "In several cases young children were being hanged by their bicycle straps.

Better parenting would seem to be a requirement for Australian children.

Boston: "… individuals with documented helmet use were found to have 1.85 times the odds of non–helmet users of being involved in an injury-related accident

Boston is a microcosm with its own characteristics.

California: "The prevalence of significant head trauma was 35% in the group of patients with helmet and 34% in the group without helmets. The prevalence of all significant trauma was 26% in the group of patients
with helmet and 20% in the group without helmets. The overall mortality
was 1%. There was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted patients."

All that means in reality is that better helmets are needed.

U.K. hospital study: "There was a statistically significant increase
in chest, spinal, upper and lower limb injury in the helmeted group in comparison with the non-helmet group." For example, 10.7% of helmeted cyclists suffered serious spine injuries, compared to 5.4% of unhelmeted cyclists.

That’s because of the macho image already mentioned in the article above.

Canada: "For traffic-related injury causes, higher cycling mode share
was consistently associated with lower hospitalization rates. Helmet laws were not associated with hospitalization rates for brain, head, scalp,
skull, face or neck injuries."

What does that mean? It’s gobbledegook.

Health Benefits of Cycling

It turns out cycling without a helmet is actually better for your health
than not cycling at all.

That’s doubtful at best, it’s another unfounded claim.

Here is what Cycling U.K. found out:

"By contrast, the risks of cycling are not exceptionally high, and are
very small relative to the health benefits. You are in fact as unlikely
to be killed in a mile of cycling as in a mile of walking. The Government
has endorsed estimates that the health benefits outweigh the risks of
cycling by a factor of 20:1.

But walkers walk more often than cyclists cycle, roughly 12 times more. So
the risk is greater for walkers.

Britain's roads aren't very bicycle-friendly. If the U.K. achieves a
ratio of 20:1, how much better are countries with better bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes) like The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany?

They aren’t better, as far as the Dutch are concerned - just look at the figures mentioned above.

Conclusions

Should you be using a bicycle helmet?

This should be a personal decision based on perceived risk.

In real life, wearing a helmet should be a personal decision based on
*actual* risk, not some ArtStudent perception of ut.

Should there be a bicycle helmet mandate of any kind?

Absolutely not: "The relatively small risks of cycling do not remotely justify banning any age group from cycling without a helmet, while mass helmet use has not in practice been found to materially reduce those risks.

Some goalpost-shifting going on there. Who said anything about different
age groups?

What is clear is that enforced helmet legislation would suppress cycle
use and that the lost health benefits alone would be a severe net cost to society.

What health benefits?

We’ve heard so many claims for bicycling and health benefits, let’s check out the comparison between NL (a cycling paradise) and the hellhole of the unhealthy UK. What are the facts?

The Dutch cycle more than the UK, 9bn miles to 3.9bn miles per annum, and
have done so for far longer. Note that the population of Holland is only one-fourth of that of the UK (or in the modern vernacular, ‘four times smaller’).

So you would think that all this health-benefit would show up in the statistics. Let’s see…

Keep in mind that the Dutch population at 17.2 million is almost exactly one-quarter of that of the UK at 68 million.

To compare cases per year on a per-head basis, the NL figures have been multiplied by 4.

CVD:
UK…324446
NL…347880
Result: UK healthier for CVD.

IHD:
UK…178985
NL…167020
Result: NL slightly healthier for IHD

Stroke:
UK…20326
NL…26072
Result: UK healthier for stroke.

Diabetes:
NL…5.4% of adults
UK…3.9% of adults
Result: UK healthier for diabetes

COPD:
NL and UK ~200 deaths per million
Result: indistinguishable

Comment: any health benefits from the amount of cycling by the Dutch over
the Brits seem to be based more on dogma, tropes, and wishful thinking
than fact.

At a time of mounting concern over the twin crises of obesity and climate change, the last thing we should be doing is forcing yet more people, especially children, into car-dependent and sedentary lifestyles."

Bingo! This is all about getting rid of cars for the general population!
And nothing to do with cycle helmets!

https://www.rwcpulse.com/blogs/peeking-at-plans/bike-helmets-01-7533472

The quoted article is based on a massive perversion of the actual facts, in
the rare cases where they are mentioned.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

marmotte27 | 569 posts | 1 hour ago
2 likes

Can someone please point me in the direction of Bedfordshire/GB Road Safety's three week campaigns aimed at drivers on:
- overtaking cyclists respecting safety distances
- not overtaking cyclists when there isn't the space (oncoming traffic, blind bends, traffic islands...) or time (crossroads/traffic lights... coming up)
- driving within the speed limits or slower when around cyclists
- not making left turns immediately after overtaking a cyclist
- not tailgating, honking at, yelling at cyclists you cannot safely overtake
- not driving into advanced stop boxes or into crossing cycle lanes
- and generally not making lots of unnecessary car journeys?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

marmotte27 | 569 posts | 1 hour ago
2 likes

Can someone please point me in the direction of Bedfordshire/GB Road
Safety's three week campaigns aimed at drivers on:

- and generally not making lots of unnecessary car journeys?

What about unnecessary cycle journeys, Tours, Velos, Vueltas?

What’s sauce for the goose…

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

We don't have an issue with wearing a helmet, but we do have an issue with people that think they are the only conversation to be had over road safety. It's obviously great for people that don't like cyclists as they can just blame anyone that chooses to
not wear a helmet and call them an idiot (it's common sense after all).

There are downsides to wearing a helmet and places that mandated helmet wearing saw a reduction in the number of cyclists - a so-called safety measure that instead increases the chance of heart disease etc. through inactivity. It's far better that we
just get people on bikes and shut the hell up about helmets.

"Accidents happen" - that's the siren song of incompetent drivers that don't believe that drivers have any agency in crashes. Not paying attention and not driving to the conditions is by far the biggest cause of crashes, but hey, accidents happen yeah?

It's insidious when we get cyclists simping to the helmet manufacturers and singing their praises, when they are way down the list of safety measures we need to be talking about. We'll never get to Vision Zero by just putting a helmet on everyone, but
that's all that "safety" organisations seem to be willing to talk about. Banging on about helmets and ridiculing the adults that actually want a more intelligent conversation about road safety is counter-productive and makes you look like an idiot, just
repeating the same old cliches.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

There are downsides to wearing a helmet and places that mandated helmet wearing saw a reduction in the number of cyclists - a so-called safety measure that instead increases the chance of heart disease etc. through inactivity. It's far better that we just get people on bikes and shut the hell up about helmets.

Wrong! Look at the data…

Keep in mind that the Dutch population at 17.2 million is almost exactly one-quarter of that of the UK at 68 million.

To compare cases per year on a per-head basis, the NL figures have been multiplied by 4.

CVD:
UK…324446
NL…347880
Result: UK healthier for CVD.

IHD:
UK…178985
NL…167020
Result: NL slightly healthier for IHD

Stroke:
UK…20326
NL…26072
Result: UK healthier for stroke.

So where are the claimed health benefits?

"Accidents happen" - that's the siren song of incompetent drivers that
don't believe that drivers have any agency in crashes. Not paying
attention and not driving to the conditions is by far the biggest cause
of crashes, but hey, accidents happen yeah?

The 4th biggest killer of cyclists arises from ‘Cyclist entering road from pavement’, which means that the cyclist wasn’t paying attention.

It's insidious when we get cyclists simping to the helmet manufacturers
and singing their praises, when they are way down the list of safety
measures we need to be talking about.

Every little helps. It’s immoral not to address one issue because another loons larger.

We'll never get to Vision Zero

Exactly. When there are only bicycles on the road, cyclists will be killing cyclists, as well as the ever-present cyclist SVA.

by just putting a helmet on everyone, but that's all that "safety" organisations seem to be willing to talk about. Banging on about helmets
and ridiculing the adults that actually want a more intelligent
conversation about road safety is counter-productive and makes you look
like an idiot, just repeating the same old cliches.

Banging on about helmets and ridiculing the adults that actually want a
more intelligent conversation about road safety is counter-productive and
makes you look like an idiot, just repeating the same old cliches.

Touché


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Cba2make1 replied to JLasTSR | 2 posts | 1 day ago
8 likes

The issue with this argument is, you could remove a number of things to prevent injury, such as not going out, an increased headwind on the day, slower riding, or the most obvious, if the car driver was trained better, more attentive and hadn't pulled
out, you wouldn't have required a helmet in the first place.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Cba2make1 replied to JLasTSR | 2 posts | 1 day ago
8 likes

The issue with this argument is, you could remove a number of things to prevent injury, such as not going out, an increased headwind on the day, slower riding, or the most obvious, if the car driver was trained better, more attentive and hadn't pulled out, you wouldn't have required a helmet
in the first place.

OTOH…

if the cyclist was trained better, more attentive and hadn't pulled out, he would have been wearing a helmet in the first place.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Don't bother arguing with the usual helmet muppets on here - it's not worth your time.

I completely agree that wearing helmets, in general, is trivial, and those here who are involved in the inexplicable campaign for wearing them, and bullying/intimidating/shaming those who do not wear helmets should be ashamed of themselves for promoting
a pathetic agenda of falsehoods and intimidation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Don't bother arguing with the usual helmet muppets on here - it's not worth your time.

I completely agree that wearing helmets, in general, is trivial, and
those here who are involved in the inexplicable campaign for wearing
them, and bullying/intimidating/shaming those who do not wear helmets
should be ashamed of themselves for promoting a pathetic agenda of
falsehoods and intimidation.

I was under the strong impression that the cycling world was full of “…a pathetic agenda of falsehoods and intimidation”.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

giff77 replied to JLasTSR | 2130 posts | 1 day ago
2 likes

And yet Volvo was only popular amongst elderly drivers are safety conscious drivers. As I said to Holding On. All the modern features on today's vehicles encourage irresponsible driving.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

giff77 replied to JLasTSR | 2130 posts | 1 day ago
2 likes

And yet Volvo was only popular amongst elderly drivers are safety
conscious drivers. As I said to Holding On. All the modern features on today's vehicles encourage irresponsible driving.

Turing Test: FAIL

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/09/23 06:59, Spike wrote:

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Don't bother arguing with the usual helmet muppets on here - it's not worth your time.

I completely agree that wearing helmets, in general, is trivial, and
those here who are involved in the inexplicable campaign for wearing
them, and bullying/intimidating/shaming those who do not wear helmets
should be ashamed of themselves for promoting a pathetic agenda of
falsehoods and intimidation.

I was under the strong impression that the cycling world was full of “…a pathetic agenda of falsehoods and intimidation”.

Glad to be of service.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

My point is that a road safety organisation should be focussing on road safety and bike helmets are way down the list of what actually works. They could be running a campaign to teach drivers about leaving enough space around vulnerable road users, or
not using mobile phones, or not speeding. They could be campaigning for effective infrastructure or driver re-testing or law changes to allow cyclists to use traffic lights more flexibly. But no, it's just bike helmets.

Mandatory helmets have been shown to reduce the number of cyclists on the roads and thus tends to make cycling more dangerous!

I don't think you understand the basics of road safety.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

My point is that a road safety organisation should be focussing on road safety and bike helmets are way down the list of what actually works.
They could be running a campaign to teach drivers about leaving enough
space around vulnerable road users, or not using mobile phones, or not speeding. They could be campaigning for effective infrastructure or
driver re-testing or law changes to allow cyclists to use traffic lights
more flexibly. But no, it's just bike helmets.

Mandatory helmets have been shown to reduce the number of cyclists on the roads and thus tends to make cycling more dangerous!

I don't think you understand the basics of road safety.

The wise alternative approach to road safety is to advance on all fronts,
not just one at a time, rather than using the employment of other measures first as a means of not looking like a tit.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

No, they are collisions - that's the only description we can be certain about. A driver may not mean to hit you, but by not paying sufficient attention they did so nonetheless. That's a decision on their part, not an accident.

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether the helmet saved your life in this instance. I also wear a helmet when cycling, but I don't think that it should be front and centre of a road safety campaign, which is what is actually being debated here.

Campaigns for road safety should primarily focus on decreasing collisions, not mitigating their effects. By making cycling out to be inherently dangerous (nearly killed by a big stick? Seriously?) this campaign helps to put people off cycling. That does
more harm to people's health, as the benefits of cycling greatly outweigh the risks.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't wear a helmet. I'm saying that campaigns should not be focused on helmet wearing as they are counter productive and take away space from more effective campaigns.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

No, they are collisions - that's the only description we can be certain about. A driver may not mean to hit you, but by not paying sufficient attention they did so nonetheless. That's a decision on their part, not an accident.

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether the helmet saved your
life in this instance. I also wear a helmet when cycling, but I don't
think that it should be front and centre of a road safety campaign, which
is what is actually being debated here.

Unfortunately, the number of cyclists that are killed in circumstances that don’t involve a motor vehicle is not insignificant. Since drivers cannot be blamed for these, and the causes remain uninvestigated, wearing a helmet
makes sense. None of those cyclists wished to die.


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

New cameras aimed at catching drivers using their mobile phone behind the wheel are proving successful in police trials.

The technology, which can also detect whether drivers are wearing a seatbelt, was initially rolled out on selected routes across Devon and Cornwall from October, last year.

During the first couple of weeks, almost 600 people were caught by police not wearing seatbelts on Devon and Cornwall roads.

The cameras caught 590 people not wearing seatbelts and 40 people driving while using a mobile phone.

The Acusensus system is equipped with multiple cameras which record footage of passing motorists.

Images captured by the cameras are processed using artificial intelligence (AI) to determine if motorists were using a handheld mobile phone or if drivers and passengers were without a seat belt. It can also determine the speed a vehicle was travelling
at the time.

Any images in which a potential offence is detected are then reviewed. If an offence has been correctly identified, the driver will either be sent a warning letter or a notice of intended prosecution, depending on the severity.

Twelve police regions have now trialled the Acusensus technology and three new trailer-based systems have arrived in the UK ahead of the next phase of trials.

Recent trials of the new trailer-based system, by Devon and Cornwall Police, caught almost 300 drivers breaking the law during the first three days of use.

The motorists were found to be using mobile phones or not wearing seatbelts.

Adrian Leisk, head of road safety for Devon and Cornwall Police, said: "When we trialled this technology last year, we were disappointed by the number of drivers detected not wearing seatbelts.

"The early results from our latest deployment show that there is also a problem with mobile phone use behind the wheel, which is both dangerous and illegal.

"We are employing this new technology to send a clear message to anyone who continues to use their phone behind the wheel - you will get caught."

The technology has also been deployed by Hampshire Constabulary and Thames Valley Police.

Partners, AECOM, operated the van-based system at locations across the two force areas, identifying hundreds of cases where these dangerous behaviours were taking place.


https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/car-industry-news/2023/08/17/ai-cameras-that-can-spot-mobile-phone-use-prove-successful-in-trials

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Police are cracking down on drivers using mobile phones and driving without wearing a seatbelt with a new van which has a camera mounted about 21ft above the road.

The mobile phone and seat belt unit uses artificial intelligence to identify motorists potentially breaking the law.

Images are then sent to an officer for a secondary check and those breaking the law will be prosecuted.

The enforcement vehicle has previously been deployed in Warwickshire, Merseyside, East and West Sussex.

Safer Roads Humber is now working with National Highways in trialling the van, which has been deployed across the Humber region this week.

A National Highways spokesman told MailOnline there is currently no commitment to deploy this further than East Yorkshire, adding: 'We are reviewing the data we have collected on mobile phone and seatbelt compliance and will be working in partnership
with the police and others in the development of the next phase of work to improve compliance and make the network safer.'

Ian Robertson, Safer Roads Humber partnership manager, said: 'It is important that motorists always obey all traffic law, this is for their safety and the safety of other road users.

'The number of people killed or injured in road collisions across the region has plateaued over the last few years and this is in part due to driver complacency.

'We can't pick and choose which road traffic laws we obey; all laws should be adhered to, at all times.'

He continued: 'This new van increases our enforcement capability; our current safety camera vans can already detect mobile phone users and seat belt offences, but this specialist equipment gives us added capacity.'

Jamie Hassall, National Highways' road safety team leader, added: 'This technology has already been deployed on roads elsewhere in the country where it has helped to shine a light on the minority of dangerous drivers who continue to put themselves and
others at risk.

'We want to see if we can change driver behaviour and therefore improve road safety for everyone.

'So, as we embark on this latest trial of the system, our advice is clear: buckle up and give the road your full attention.'

Safer Roads Humber is also raising awareness of the 'Fatal Four' which are the main causes of crashes on the road.
The mobile phone and seat belt unit uses artificial intelligence to identify motorists potentially breaking the law

The mobile phone and seat belt unit uses artificial intelligence to identify motorists potentially breaking the law

This includes speeding, using a handheld mobile phone whilst driving resulting in distraction, driving whilst impaired through alcohol and drugs and not wearing a seat belt which determines the severity of injury in a crash.
Unsafe driver detected every six minutes during UK-first trial

The new van was trialled in partnership with Warwickshire Police to understand levels of unsafe behaviour on the Strategic Road Network last autumn.

In the UK-first trial of the new safety technology, motorists were found holding mobile phones or driving without seatbelts every six minutes.

The 'sensor test vehicle' was trialled in a number of weeks ahead of October 17 on England's motorways and major A-roads.

At the time, a total of 122,241 vehicles were checked on the M40 and A46 over a period of 64 hours.

This led to 152 mobile phone detections and 512 vehicle occupants without a seat belt.

Of the 664 offences detected, it is estimated that 530 (79.81%) were committed by people between the ages of 30 and 49, while 627 (94.42%) of those caught out were male.

Mr Robertson said: 'The majority of motorists drive safely and appropriately most of the time, but a very small minority deliberately drive in a dangerous manner.

'Using a handheld phone whilst driving whether texting, checking your status or ringing friends is a very deliberate act.

'Not wearing your seat belt is a very deliberate act and if you're involved in a collision, you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured. Anyone driving in this manner risks prosecution.'

The van has been developed by Aecom and Acusensus. It has been deployed by National Highways – working alongside different police forces – as part of a road safety trial programme since last summer.

Anyone detected using a handheld mobile phone whilst driving risks being fined £200 and receiving six points on their driving licence.

Anyone not wearing a seat belt within a vehicle will risk a £100 fine, with the driver being responsible for any passengers under the age of 14.

Where possible those detected may be offered an education course as an alternative to prosecution.

Police have previously spied on motorists from unmarked HGVs and caught hundreds of drivers breaking the law.

MailOnline reported in 2020 that officers used a 'stealthy' lorry's cab height to look inside vehicles and see if drivers were wearing seat belts or using mobile phones.

They found some motorists completely disregarding safety rules, with one driver caught using his elbows to steer and another using his dashboard as his filing system.

Another man was watching music videos while behind the wheel and a woman was seen doing her makeup in the fourth lane of the M25, police said at the time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Having comprehensively lost the argument, Simon Mason swings in to Full Deflection Mode, by dragging up an old favourite…


Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

New cameras aimed at catching drivers using their mobile phone behind the wheel are proving successful in police trials.

Transparent? Mason? Quelle surprise!

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

We’re carrying out a mobile phone enforcement operation led by the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) over the next three weeks, joining police colleagues from across the country to target drivers who are being distracted by mobile phones or
other devices while driving.

Since the beginning of 2021, there have been more than 4,500 fatal or injury collisions on Avon and Somerset roads. A quarter of these had distraction, mobile phone use or driver failed to look properly listed as a contributing factor.

Drivers who use a mobile phone, whether handheld or hands free, are at four times greater risk of crashing. We class this as one of the ‘fatal five’ behaviours that we’re dedicated to tackling all year round.

From 27th February to 12th March, our officers will be carrying out high profile intelligence and data led enforcement across the region to reassure the public and help to influence driver decisions around using a mobile behind the wheel. The RAC 2020
Report on Motoring states that a third of Britain’s 40 million drivers feel mobile phone use is one of their top concerns.

We’re using this operation to highlight changes to the laws around mobile phones, raising awareness that it is now illegal to hold and use a mobile phone, sat nav, tablet or any device that can send or receive data, while driving a motor vehicle or
riding a motorcycle. This includes unlocking the screen, checking the time, texting, making, or rejecting calls, taking photos or videos, browsing the web and drafting or reading text message, all of which are easily proven.

The law still applies if you are:

stopped at traffic lights
queuing in traffic
supervising a learner driver
driving a car fitted with stop/start technology that switches the engine off when you come to a stop
holding and using a device that’s offline or in flight mode

Penalties for using phones in these ways range from six points and a £200 fine to being disqualified from driving and facing court, where a fine of £1,000 can be imposed (£2,500 if driving a lorry or bus).

The situations in which a device can be used are:

to call 999 or 112 in an emergency and it’s unsafe or impractical to stop
you’re safely parked
you’re making a contactless payment in a vehicle that’s not moving (e.g., at a drive through restaurant)
you’re using the device to park your vehicle remotely

We’re also encouraging people to share video evidence (dashcam, cyclecam, helmetcam and others) of drivers using their phone at www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/roads to help us prosecute offenders.

Inspector John Shaddick of the Tactical Support Team said:

“The majority of people agree that driving while distracted is dangerous and completely unacceptable behaviour. In the last 12 months, we’ve received 713 videos of drivers using their mobile phones from drivers with dash cams. We’ve taken
police action in 607 of those cases, and are grateful to members of the public who are working with us to keep our roads safer.

“To those tempted to use their phones whilst driving, we say put it somewhere you can’t see, hear, or reach it and allow yourself a break to park up and check it if you need to. There is no excuse for putting yourself and others in danger by
driving distracted.

“Based on figures published by the government in 2021, we can expect 100 people to lose their lives on UK roads during the three weeks of this operation. It’s a shocking statistic and the reason why we are committed to taking dangerous drivers
off the roads around the clock, every day of the year.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

We’re carrying out a mobile phone enforcement operation led by the
National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) over the next three weeks, joining police colleagues from across the country to target drivers who are being distracted by mobile phones or other devices while driving.

Unattributed article, posted on 27 February 2023 at 10:14, in full:

<https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2023/02/were-joining-nationwide-crackdown-on-people-who-use-mobile-phones-while-driving/>

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

West Mercia Police are supporting the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) mobile phone campaign (8th – 21st Feb), by targeting motorists who continue to use their mobile phone at the wheel.

Distraction behind the wheel is such a significant contributory factor with regards to road collisions and this campaign demonstrates a willingness by police forces across the UK to tackle the issue of mobile phone use. Recent research carried out by the
RAC, showing a detailed picture of drivers’ attitudes and opinion, places mobile phone use as the top driver concern.

Since 2018 there have been 2 fatalities, 14 serious injuries and 60 slight injuries in West Mercia where use of a mobile phone was recorded as a causation factor.

As part of the campaign motorists are being urged to really consider the impact using a mobile phone has on their driving ability, whether this is hand held or hands free and for all use, not just calls. Whilst hands free is still legal, it is still a
distraction and has been proven that drivers are more likely to be involved in a collision, are far less likely to notice or react to hazards, show poor lane discipline and display variable speed choices. If being distracted is leading to dangerous
driving behaviour then enforcement can still be an option whether hands free or not.

For some people ensuring that your mobile phone is kept out of easy reach or turning your mobile off whilst driving is an easy way of avoiding the temptation.

Motorists caught using a mobile phone could face a £200 fine and six points on their licence. Drivers caught twice face a lengthy ban – which could also then lead to a £1,000 fine. While new drivers - those who have passed within the last two years -
face having their licence revoked if caught just once.

However, traditional police officer enforcement isn’t the only deterrent that is out there. With our recent commitment to the Operation Snap initiative members of the public can submit footage that has been captured on dashcam, headcams or other
devices to a secure online portal, this means that anyone could be capturing evidence of poor driving and mobile phone use that will be viewed and actioned by a police officer.

Superintendent Mel Crowther for West Mercia Police said: ““Driving while distracted by a mobile phone is completely unacceptable and puts everyone on the roads at risk of serious harm. We are urging those motorists who currently use a phone behind
the wheel, whether hand held or hands free to really consider the impact of this on their safety and the safety of other road users, especially at this time of increased demand on emergency services. When you get behind the wheel it is your
responsibility to stay focused and alert and we will be doing all we can to ensure our roads are kept safe”.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Police are cracking down on drivers using mobile phones and driving
without wearing a seatbelt with a new van which has a camera mounted
about 21ft above the road.

Full Deflection Mode not having worked, Simon Mason will try Full
Deflection Mode…

🙄


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

West Mercia Police are supporting the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) mobile phone campaign (8th – 21st Feb), by targeting motorists who continue to use their mobile phone at the wheel.

Unattributed article can be found at

<https://www.westmercia.police.uk/news/west-mercia/news/2021/january/police-continue-crackdown-on-drivers-using-mobile-phone/>


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

West Mercia Police are supporting the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) mobile phone operation over the next two weeks, by targeting motorists who continue to use their handheld mobile phone at the wheel.

Distraction behind the wheel is such a significant contributory factor with regards to road collisions and this national operation demonstrates a willingness by police forces across the UK to tackle the issue of mobile phone use.

Motorists caught using a handheld mobile phone while driving face a £200 fine and six points on their licence. Drivers caught twice face a lengthy ban – which could also lead to a £1,000 fine. While new drivers - those who have passed within the last
two years - face having their licence revoked if caught just once. New legislation adopted last year also makes it clearer that the law includes using phones for reasons such as internet use, checking notifications and uploading content whilst driving.

Over the past 3 years there have been 43 collisions in West Mercia where use of a mobile phone was listed as a contributory factor leading to 2 fatalities, 10 serious injuries and 52 slight injuries.

Supt Steph Brighton said: “Driving while distracted by a mobile phone is completely unacceptable and puts road users at risk of serious harm. Everyone knows the use of handheld mobile phones whilst driving is against the law and we are very clear that
when you get behind the wheel it is your responsibility to stay focused and alert. This not only covers making and receiving calls but also the use of social media, messaging and streaming. The majority of drivers use the roads respectfully and adhere to
the laws around mobile phone use but it is concerning that we still have some drivers across West Mercia who are willing to risk driving whilst distracted. This is a year round commitment for us to challenge this behaviour”.

https://www.westmercia.police.uk/news/west-mercia/news/2023/february/police-continue-to-crackdown-on-drivers-using-mobile-phone/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

POLICE are targetting drivers using mobile phones as part of a national campaign.

Today (Monday, February 7) marks a three week campaign raising awareness of the dangers of using a mobile phone whilst driving.

Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Constabulary Joint Operations Roads Policing Unit will be supporting this campaign until February 27.

Through research, it has been shown that using a mobile phone can impair your ability to drive more than if you were driving whilst over the drink drive limit.

Police say it is one of the four factors, alongside drink and drug driving, speeding and not wearing a seatbelt, that can increase your chances of being seriously injured or even killed if involved in a road traffic collision.

Road Safety Sergeant David Hazlett, of the Joint Operations Roads Policing Unit said: “Driving whilst using a mobile device is dangerous and one of the four main contributory causes of fatal collisions.

“Whilst many vehicles now allow drivers to pair their phones and devices, people should not view ‘hands free’ as being a safe alternative."

Police research shows drivers are four times more likely to be involved in a collision due to distractions that mobile phones cause.

They also believe using hands free devices can also have an impact on your reaction times.

Adding: "Is it worth answering that call or can it wait? Texting, checking emails, scrolling through music and other device functions also distracts the driver and prevents their full attention which is needed for safe driving.

“It’s important to say that the vast majority of drivers don’t break the law but work still needs to be done to change the public’s minds and make mobile phone use in vehicles as socially unacceptable as drink and drug driving.”

https://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/news/19904817.thames-valley-police-crackdown-drivers-using-mobile-phones/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

West Mercia Police are supporting the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) mobile phone operation over the next two weeks, by targeting
motorists who continue to use their handheld mobile phone at the wheel.

https://www.westmercia.police.uk/news/west-mercia/news/2023/february/police-continue-to-crackdown-on-drivers-using-mobile-phone/

This phone-using cyclist lost five teeth, you can see them falling in the slo-mo:

<https://news.sky.com/video/cyclist-on-phone-crashes-into-gate-11252672>


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Motorists could face fines of up to £1,000 and could lose their licence particularly if they are a new driver.

West Mercia Police have welcomed the new legislation, saying there have been almost 50 accidents in the region in the last three years when mobile phones have been a cause.

From March 25, the Government strengthened the law to make it illegal to use a handheld mobile phone behind the wheel for virtually any use.

A national campaign has been launched by THINK! to raise awareness of the changes, which bans virtually any use such as taking photos or videos, scrolling through playlists, online chat functions or playing games.

Police say since 2019 there have been 49 collisions in West Mercia where use of a mobile phone was listed as a contributory factor, leading to nine serious injuries and 40 slight injuries.

Research has shown that drivers who use a mobile phone while driving are slower at recognising and reacting to hazards, fail to see road signs, fail to maintain proper lane position and steady speed and are much less aware of what’s happening on the
road around them.

If caught using your mobile phone behind the wheel you could receive a fine up to £1,000 and six penalty points, which for a newly-qualified driver could mean losing their licence.

The only exemptions that still remain are hands-free use while driving if secured in a cradle, allowing sat nav use.

Superintendent Steph Brighton said: "Hands-free, although legal, is still not ideal as it will reduce your level of concentration while driving, putting yourself and other road users at risk. Drivers must always take responsibility for their driving and
can still be charged with an offence if the police find them not to be in proper control of their vehicle. There is also an exemption that allows contactless payments such as those at a drive-through or on toll roads so long as the vehicle is stationary.

“Driving while distracted by a mobile phone is completely unacceptable and puts everyone on the roads at risk of serious harm. Everyone knows the use of handheld mobile phones whilst driving is against the law and we are very clear that when you get
behind the wheel it is your responsibility to stay focused and alert.

"We welcome the new national changes as this is very clear that the law not only covers making and receiving calls but also the use of social media, messaging and streaming. It’s concerning that we still have drivers across West Mercia who are willing
to risk driving whilst distracted and it is a year-round commitment for us to challenge this behaviour."

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/crime/2022/03/25/using-your-mobile-phone-while-driver-could-see-you-lose-your-licence-police-warn/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Motorists could face fines of up to £1,000 and could lose their licence particularly if they are a new driver.

West Mercia Police have welcomed the new legislation, saying there have
been almost 50 accidents in the region in the last three years when
mobile phones have been a cause.

Police say since 2019 there have been 49 collisions in West Mercia where
use of a mobile phone was listed as a contributory factor, leading to
nine serious injuries and 40 slight injuries.

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/crime/2022/03/25/using-your-mobile-phone-while-driver-could-see-you-lose-your-licence-police-warn/

49 collisions in almost five years?

What caused the other 10,000?

Hint: in the West Mercia area in 2018 alone there were 2500 reportable collisions.

I think they are talking of a non-problem here.

Just think of the arguments that cyclists use when speaking against helmet
use: “it’s only a handful”, etc.

You fall for it all, don’t you.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

POLICE in Avon and Somerset are cracking down on drivers using their mobile phone or other devices as part of a nationwide three-week initiative from today (Monday, February 27).

It comes as figures show there have been more than 4,500 fatal or injury collisions on force area roads since the start of 2021. One in four involved a distraction, mobile phone use or a driver failing to look properly.

From today until March 12, officers will be carrying out high profile enforcement to reassure the public and help influence driver decisions around using a mobile.

The operation will highlight law changes around mobile phones, raising awareness that it is now illegal to hold and use a mobile phone, sat nav, tablet or any device that can send or receive data, while driving or riding a motorcycle. That includes
unlocking the screen, checking the time, texting, making or rejecting calls, taking photos or videos, browsing the web and drafting or reading texts.

The law still applies if you are:

stopped at traffic lights;

queuing in traffic;

supervising a learner driver;

driving a car fitted with stop/start technology that switches the engine off when you come to a stop;

holding and using a device that’s offline or in flight mode.

Penalties range from six points and a £200 fine to being disqualified from driving and facing court, where a fine of £1,000 can be imposed (£2,500 if driving a lorry or bus).

The situations in which a device can be used are:

to call 999 or 112 in an emergency and it’s unsafe or impractical to stop;

you’re safely parked;

you’re making a contactless payment in a vehicle that’s not moving (for example at a drive through restaurant);

you’re using the device to park remotely.

Police are also encouraging people to share video evidence (dashcam, cyclecam, helmetcam and others) of drivers using their phone at www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/roads to help prosecute offenders.

Inspector John Shaddick, of Avon and Somerset's Tactical Support Team, said: “The majority of people agree that driving while distracted is dangerous and completely unacceptable behaviour.

"In the last 12 months, we’ve received 713 videos of drivers using their mobile phones from drivers with dash cams.

"We’ve taken police action in 607 of those cases, and are grateful to members of the public who are working with us to keep our roads safer.

“To those tempted to use their phones whilst driving, we say put it somewhere you can’t see, hear, or reach it and allow yourself a break to park up and check it if you need to."

https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/23348881.crackdown-mobile-phone-drivers-avon-somerset/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

POLICE in Avon and Somerset are cracking down on drivers using their
mobile phone or other devices as part of a nationwide three-week
initiative from today (Monday, February 27).

It comes as figures show there have been more than 4,500 fatal or injury collisions on force area roads since the start of 2021. One in four
involved a distraction, mobile phone use or a driver failing to look properly.

The same could be said of the West Mercia Force area, except they let the
cat out of the bag by admitting a mere 49 accidents (data shows that’s out
of some 2500 accidents a year) were due to mobile phone use.

The standard way of hiding this sort of embarrassing data is to bury it in
a wider category, which is what the A&S Force have done with their ‘distraction’ label.

You fall for it every time, don’t you.

https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/23348881.crackdown-mobile-phone-drivers-avon-somerset/

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Almost 50 drivers were caught every hour during a police crackdown on the illegal use of mobile phones at the wheel.

Officers handed out 7,966 fixed penalty notices for the offence in a week-long campaign in November. The tally – equivalent to a rate of 47 an hour – is the highest yet for a week of enforcement on “distraction driving”. By comparison, the totals
for three previous initiatives were 2,690 in May 2015, 2,276 in September 2015, and 2,323 in May last year. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) released the figures in advance of a fresh clampdown which starts on Monday.

Thirty-six forces across England, Wales and Northern Ireland took part in the November campaign, stopping 10,012 vehicles. As well as detecting nearly 8,000 mobile phone offences, police delivered hundreds of verbal warnings while 68 court summonses were
issued. Officers also identified 117 other “distraction” offences.

It is illegal to use a handheld phone while driving, with those falling foul of the rules facing penalty points and a fine. Calls for efforts to curb the practice intensified last year in the wake of high-profile cases and research indicating that it is
widespread.

This week, constabularies around the country will be running targeted operations and education campaigns. The crackdown will include patrols using unmarked vans, high vantage points and helmet cameras, as well as community “spotters” to highlight
hotspots and report repeat offenders to police.

Suzette Davenport, the NPCC lead for roads policing, said: “This week, forces will be working to make driving distracted as socially unacceptable as drink-driving through enforcing strong deterrents and powerful messages to make people think twice
about their driving habits.

“Encouraging results from last year’s campaign against mobile phone use show how effective new tactics and innovative approaches can be. Officers will continue to use intelligence-led tactics to target police activity and resources and catch repeat
offenders.

“Forces will be working throughout the year to tackle this behaviour by motorists with national partners and the public. Remember: when at the wheel, your calls or texts can wait. Keep your eyes on the road.”

Under plans announced last year, the Department for Transport will introduce legislation doubling the punishment for using a handheld mobile phone while driving – with the fine rising from £100 to £200 and penalty points increasing from three to six.

Ministers have also set out proposals under which motorists who cause death while on a mobile phone will face tougher sentences.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/23/police-catch-47-drivers-an-hour-during-mobile-phone-crackdown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26/09/2023 11:28 am, Simon Mason wrote:

It's amazing how the effectiveness of helmets is so exagerated in the minds on the faithful. The number of people whose lives have been saved by helmets according to annecdote far exceeds the number of chav-cyclists who were dying to head injuries

before helmets.

So either most people "who would have died" without a helmet would not actually have died.

OR

Drivers are now knocking chav-cyclists down far more frequently safe in the knowledge that their helmets protect them.

Do you wear a helmet when out walking? why not? head injuries per billion km are higher for pedestrians than for chavs-on-bikes.

To whom do you imagine that you are talking?

No-one here has EVER argued that fairy-cycle-helmets should be
compulsory for chavs like you to wear whilst riding chav-bikes.

Do you know what "Quixotic" means?


[No, of course, you don't. I shouldn't have asked.]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26/09/2023 06:37 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

... when I was a boy I walked into a lamppost while chatting to my father....

That could explain a lot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

West Mercia Police are supporting the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) mobile phone campaign (8th – 21st Feb), by targeting motorists who continue to use their mobile phone at the wheel.

Distraction behind the wheel is such a significant contributory factor with regards to road collisions and this campaign demonstrates a willingness by police forces across the UK to tackle the issue of mobile phone use. Recent research carried out by the
RAC, showing a detailed picture of drivers’ attitudes and opinion, places mobile phone use as the top driver concern.

Since 2018 there have been 2 fatalities, 14 serious injuries and 60 slight injuries in West Mercia where use of a mobile phone was recorded as a causation factor.

As part of the campaign motorists are being urged to really consider the impact using a mobile phone has on their driving ability, whether this is hand held or hands free and for all use, not just calls. Whilst hands free is still legal, it is still a
distraction and has been proven that drivers are more likely to be involved in a collision, are far less likely to notice or react to hazards, show poor lane discipline and display variable speed choices. If being distracted is leading to dangerous
driving behaviour then enforcement can still be an option whether hands free or not.

For some people ensuring that your mobile phone is kept out of easy reach or turning your mobile off whilst driving is an easy way of avoiding the temptation.

Motorists caught using a mobile phone could face a £200 fine and six points on their licence. Drivers caught twice face a lengthy ban – which could also then lead to a £1,000 fine. While new drivers - those who have passed within the last two years -
face having their licence revoked if caught just once.

However, traditional police officer enforcement isn’t the only deterrent that is out there. With our recent commitment to the Operation Snap initiative members of the public can submit footage that has been captured on dashcam, headcams or other
devices to a secure online portal, this means that anyone could be capturing evidence of poor driving and mobile phone use that will be viewed and actioned by a police officer.

Superintendent Mel Crowther for West Mercia Police said: ““Driving while distracted by a mobile phone is completely unacceptable and puts everyone on the roads at risk of serious harm. We are urging those motorists who currently use a phone behind
the wheel, whether hand held or hands free to really consider the impact of this on their safety and the safety of other road users, especially at this time of increased demand on emergency services. When you get behind the wheel it is your
responsibility to stay focused and alert and we will be doing all we can to ensure our roads are kept safe”.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Motorists could face fines of up to £1,000 and could lose their licence particularly if they are a new driver.

West Mercia Police have welcomed the new legislation, saying there have been almost 50 accidents in the region in the last three years when mobile phones have been a cause.

From March 25, the Government strengthened the law to make it illegal to use a handheld mobile phone behind the wheel for virtually any use.

A national campaign has been launched by THINK! to raise awareness of the changes, which bans virtually any use such as taking photos or videos, scrolling through playlists, online chat functions or playing games.

Police say since 2019 there have been 49 collisions in West Mercia where use of a mobile phone was listed as a contributory factor, leading to nine serious injuries and 40 slight injuries.

Research has shown that drivers who use a mobile phone while driving are slower at recognising and reacting to hazards, fail to see road signs, fail to maintain proper lane position and steady speed and are much less aware of what’s happening on the
road around them.

If caught using your mobile phone behind the wheel you could receive a fine up to £1,000 and six penalty points, which for a newly-qualified driver could mean losing their licence.

The only exemptions that still remain are hands-free use while driving if secured in a cradle, allowing sat nav use.

Superintendent Steph Brighton said: "Hands-free, although legal, is still not ideal as it will reduce your level of concentration while driving, putting yourself and other road users at risk. Drivers must always take responsibility for their driving and
can still be charged with an offence if the police find them not to be in proper control of their vehicle. There is also an exemption that allows contactless payments such as those at a drive-through or on toll roads so long as the vehicle is stationary.

“Driving while distracted by a mobile phone is completely unacceptable and puts everyone on the roads at risk of serious harm. Everyone knows the use of handheld mobile phones whilst driving is against the law and we are very clear that when you get
behind the wheel it is your responsibility to stay focused and alert.

"We welcome the new national changes as this is very clear that the law not only covers making and receiving calls but also the use of social media, messaging and streaming. It’s concerning that we still have drivers across West Mercia who are willing
to risk driving whilst distracted and it is a year-round commitment for us to challenge this behaviour."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Police say nearly 6,000 motorists have been caught using mobile phones illegally at the wheel during a major crackdown.

In a four-week period in March this year, more than 200 motorists were spotted each day - the equivalent of one every seven minutes.

Since 1 March, motorists who have fallen foul of the law have faced a £200 fine and six points on their licence.

The new tougher punishments mean that new drivers risk losing their licence for sending a single text.

Figures obtained from police forces across Britain show there were 5,977 instances of illegal mobile use by drivers during the crackdown, from 1 to 28 March.

Of the forces that provided information, the Metropolitan Police registered the highest number at 2,037, meaning more than 70 drivers were caught using a handheld phone on London's roads each day.

The lowest figure was provided by Gwent in Monmouthshire, with 22 reported cases - less than one person a day.
Incidents include a man doing his online banking while driving on the M5 near Birmingham, and a driver on his phone while behind the wheel of a school minibus with 10 children on board in Manchester.

While the number of drivers fined for using mobiles in their cars has fallen in recent years, it is argued this is down to the reduction in the number of full-time dedicated road policing officers rather than better driver safety standards.

Road safety charity Brake called driver distraction a "growing menace" and called for the £200 fine to be "significantly increased".

Twenty-two people were killed and 99 seriously injured in accidents on Britain's roads in 2015, with motorist mobile phone use a contributory factor.

Police are keen to show mobile phone use is not a minor offence and say they want to make it as "socially unacceptable" as drink-driving.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/10/2023 05:01 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

Police say nearly 6,000 motorists have been caught using mobile phones illegally at the wheel during a major crackdown.

In a four-week period in March this year, more than 200 motorists were spotted each day - the equivalent of one every seven minutes.

Since 1 March, motorists who have fallen foul of the law have faced a £200 fine and six points on their licence.

The new tougher punishments mean that new drivers risk losing their licence for sending a single text.

Figures obtained from police forces across Britain show there were 5,977 instances of illegal mobile use by drivers during the crackdown, from 1 to 28 March.

Of the forces that provided information, the Metropolitan Police registered the highest number at 2,037, meaning more than 70 drivers were caught using a handheld phone on London's roads each day.

The lowest figure was provided by Gwent in Monmouthshire, with 22 reported cases - less than one person a day.
Incidents include a man doing his online banking while driving on the M5 near Birmingham, and a driver on his phone while behind the wheel of a school minibus with 10 children on board in Manchester.

While the number of drivers fined for using mobiles in their cars has fallen in recent years, it is argued this is down to the reduction in the number of full-time dedicated road policing officers rather than better driver safety standards.

Road safety charity Brake called driver distraction a "growing menace" and called for the £200 fine to be "significantly increased".

Twenty-two people were killed and 99 seriously injured in accidents on Britain's roads in 2015, with motorist mobile phone use a contributory factor.

Police are keen to show mobile phone use is not a minor offence and say they want to make it as "socially unacceptable" as drink-driving.

It's easy enough to get Siri to send your texts. And to read out the
incoming ones.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/10/2023 05:01 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

Police say nearly 6,000 motorists have been caught using mobile phones illegally at the wheel during a major crackdown.

In a four-week period in March this year, more than 200 motorists were spotted each day - the equivalent of one every seven minutes.

Since 1 March, motorists who have fallen foul of the law have faced a £200 fine and six points on their licence.

The new tougher punishments mean that new drivers risk losing their licence for sending a single text.

Figures obtained from police forces across Britain show there were 5,977 instances of illegal mobile use by drivers during the crackdown, from 1 to 28 March.

Of the forces that provided information, the Metropolitan Police registered the highest number at 2,037, meaning more than 70 drivers were caught using a handheld phone on London's roads each day.

The lowest figure was provided by Gwent in Monmouthshire, with 22 reported cases - less than one person a day.
Incidents include a man doing his online banking while driving on the M5 near Birmingham, and a driver on his phone while behind the wheel of a school minibus with 10 children on board in Manchester.

While the number of drivers fined for using mobiles in their cars has fallen in recent years, it is argued this is down to the reduction in the number of full-time dedicated road policing officers rather than better driver safety standards.

Road safety charity Brake called driver distraction a "growing menace" and called for the £200 fine to be "significantly increased".

Twenty-two people were killed and 99 seriously injured in accidents on Britain's roads in 2015, with motorist mobile phone use a contributory factor.

Police are keen to show mobile phone use is not a minor offence and say they want to make it as "socially unacceptable" as drink-driving.

Are the "Police" aware that using a mobile telephone while driving isn't
even illegal?

Come to that, are you?

[Yes, that's rhetorical.]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Illegal phone use by drivers at the wheel has risen significantly in the UK over just two years.

Almost one-third (31%) of 1,700 motorists admitted using handheld mobile phones on the road - up 23% since 2014, an RAC study revealed.

A staggering 12% even described using their mobile whilst behind the wheel as a habit.

The figures mean use of handheld mobiles now represents "the biggest road safety concern among motorists today", according to the RAC.

Following the release of the figures, ITV News looks back at some of the tragic deaths caused by mobile-phone using drivers over the past two years.

In June 2014, 14-year-old Liberty Baker was on her way to school in Witney when a car mounted a kerb and ploughed into her and three others.

A court heard the 19-year-old driver was probably checking a text messaged when he knocked down Liberty, who died days later.

In 2015, Robert Blackwell was jailed for four years for causing death by dangerous driving.

After the RAC study, Liberty's father Paul told GMB the figures were "devastating".

"Every day you see it on the roads, on the motorways. There is just no fear now of being caught", he said.

Laura Thomas was knocked down when a lorry driver hit her broken-down car on the A5 in Shropshire.

Ian Glover admitted he had been browsing pornographic websites on his phone when he ploughed into the vehicle, which flew into Ms Thomas, on July 21, 2013.

Her fiancee, Lewis Pagett, was also seriously injured.

Glover, 44, was jailed for five years.

Off-duty police officer Sharon Garrett, 44, was killed when a lorry driver who was texting collided with three vehicles.

Danny Warby, 28, was jailed for six years after the collision in Wyton, Cambridgeshire, in June 2014.

Warby had only been driving for two minutes when the collision occurred.

Mother-of-two Ms Garrett's death was described as "devastating" by her family. A van driver with eight previous convictions for using his mobile phone at the wheel knocked down and killed cyclist Lee Martin seconds after reading a text message.

Christopher Gard, 30, was jailed for nine years after he ploughed into the father-of-two, 48, who had been competing in a ten-mile time trial event.

The crash happened on August 12, 2015, in Bentley, Hampshire, just six weeks after Gard was allowed to keep his licence by magistrates.

Under current legislation, drivers are handed three points and a £100 fine if convicted of using a mobile phone at the wheel.

In the past decade at least 205 people have been killed in Britain in crashes involving drivers using handheld phones.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/10/2023 05:20 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

Illegal phone use by drivers at the wheel has risen significantly in the UK over just two years.

Almost one-third (31%) of 1,700 motorists admitted using handheld mobile phones on the road - up 23% since 2014, an RAC study revealed.

A staggering 12% even described using their mobile whilst behind the wheel as a habit.

The figures mean use of handheld mobiles now represents "the biggest road safety concern among motorists today", according to the RAC.

Following the release of the figures, ITV News looks back at some of the tragic deaths caused by mobile-phone using drivers over the past two years.

In June 2014, 14-year-old Liberty Baker was on her way to school in Witney when a car mounted a kerb and ploughed into her and three others.

A court heard the 19-year-old driver was probably checking a text messaged when he knocked down Liberty, who died days later.

In 2015, Robert Blackwell was jailed for four years for causing death by dangerous driving.

After the RAC study, Liberty's father Paul told GMB the figures were "devastating".

"Every day you see it on the roads, on the motorways. There is just no fear now of being caught", he said.

Laura Thomas was knocked down when a lorry driver hit her broken-down car on the A5 in Shropshire.

Ian Glover admitted he had been browsing pornographic websites on his phone when he ploughed into the vehicle, which flew into Ms Thomas, on July 21, 2013.

Her fiancee, Lewis Pagett, was also seriously injured.

Glover, 44, was jailed for five years.

Off-duty police officer Sharon Garrett, 44, was killed when a lorry driver who was texting collided with three vehicles.

Danny Warby, 28, was jailed for six years after the collision in Wyton, Cambridgeshire, in June 2014.

Warby had only been driving for two minutes when the collision occurred.

Mother-of-two Ms Garrett's death was described as "devastating" by her family.
A van driver with eight previous convictions for using his mobile phone at the wheel knocked down and killed cyclist Lee Martin seconds after reading a text message.

Christopher Gard, 30, was jailed for nine years after he ploughed into the father-of-two, 48, who had been competing in a ten-mile time trial event.

The crash happened on August 12, 2015, in Bentley, Hampshire, just six weeks after Gard was allowed to keep his licence by magistrates.

Under current legislation, drivers are handed three points and a £100 fine if convicted of using a mobile phone at the wheel.

Are you even sure that that's an offence?

In the past decade at least 205 people have been killed in Britain in crashes involving drivers using handheld phones.

Ah...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/10/2023 05:32 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

Almost 50 drivers were caught every hour during a police crackdown on the illegal use of mobile phones at the wheel.

Officers handed out 7,966 fixed penalty notices for the offence in a week-long campaign in November. The tally – equivalent to a rate of 47 an hour – is the highest yet for a week of enforcement on “distraction driving”. By comparison, the

totals for three previous initiatives were 2,690 in May 2015, 2,276 in September 2015, and 2,323 in May last year. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) released the figures in advance of a fresh clampdown which starts on Monday.

Thirty-six forces across England, Wales and Northern Ireland took part in the November campaign, stopping 10,012 vehicles. As well as detecting nearly 8,000 mobile phone offences, police delivered hundreds of verbal warnings while 68 court summonses

were issued. Officers also identified 117 other “distraction” offences.

It is illegal to use a handheld phone while driving, with those falling foul of the rules facing penalty points and a fine. Calls for efforts to curb the practice intensified last year in the wake of high-profile cases and research indicating that it

is widespread.

This week, constabularies around the country will be running targeted operations and education campaigns. The crackdown will include patrols using unmarked vans, high vantage points and helmet cameras, as well as community “spotters” to highlight

hotspots and report repeat offenders to police.

Suzette Davenport, the NPCC lead for roads policing, said: “This week, forces will be working to make driving distracted as socially unacceptable as drink-driving through enforcing strong deterrents and powerful messages to make people think twice

about their driving habits.

“Encouraging results from last year’s campaign against mobile phone use show how effective new tactics and innovative approaches can be. Officers will continue to use intelligence-led tactics to target police activity and resources and catch repeat

offenders.

“Forces will be working throughout the year to tackle this behaviour by motorists with national partners and the public. Remember: when at the wheel, your calls or texts can wait. Keep your eyes on the road.”

Under plans announced last year, the Department for Transport will introduce legislation doubling the punishment for using a handheld mobile phone while driving – with the fine rising from £100 to £200 and penalty points increasing from three to

six.

Ministers have also set out proposals under which motorists who cause death while on a mobile phone will face tougher sentences.

How about those chavs who cause death while on a fairy-cycle?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Almost 50 drivers were caught every hour during a police crackdown on the illegal use of mobile phones at the wheel.

Officers handed out 7,966 fixed penalty notices for the offence in a week-long campaign in November. The tally – equivalent to a rate of 47 an hour – is the highest yet for a week of enforcement on “distraction driving”. By comparison, the totals
for three previous initiatives were 2,690 in May 2015, 2,276 in September 2015, and 2,323 in May last year. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) released the figures in advance of a fresh clampdown which starts on Monday.

Thirty-six forces across England, Wales and Northern Ireland took part in the November campaign, stopping 10,012 vehicles. As well as detecting nearly 8,000 mobile phone offences, police delivered hundreds of verbal warnings while 68 court summonses were
issued. Officers also identified 117 other “distraction” offences.

It is illegal to use a handheld phone while driving, with those falling foul of the rules facing penalty points and a fine. Calls for efforts to curb the practice intensified last year in the wake of high-profile cases and research indicating that it is
widespread.

This week, constabularies around the country will be running targeted operations and education campaigns. The crackdown will include patrols using unmarked vans, high vantage points and helmet cameras, as well as community “spotters” to highlight
hotspots and report repeat offenders to police.

Suzette Davenport, the NPCC lead for roads policing, said: “This week, forces will be working to make driving distracted as socially unacceptable as drink-driving through enforcing strong deterrents and powerful messages to make people think twice
about their driving habits.

“Encouraging results from last year’s campaign against mobile phone use show how effective new tactics and innovative approaches can be. Officers will continue to use intelligence-led tactics to target police activity and resources and catch repeat
offenders.

“Forces will be working throughout the year to tackle this behaviour by motorists with national partners and the public. Remember: when at the wheel, your calls or texts can wait. Keep your eyes on the road.”

Under plans announced last year, the Department for Transport will introduce legislation doubling the punishment for using a handheld mobile phone while driving – with the fine rising from £100 to £200 and penalty points increasing from three to six.

Ministers have also set out proposals under which motorists who cause death while on a mobile phone will face tougher sentences.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

More than 50 drivers a day are still being caught using their mobiles at the wheel – putting lives at risk.

The number of motorists captured by police has doubled in some areas despite the recent introduction of tougher penalties.

Official figures released by the Home Office show the number of fines issued for using a hand-held device has gone up by 10 per cent across England and Wales in a year.

More than 50 drivers a day are still being caught using their mobiles at the wheel – putting lives at risk.

The number of motorists captured by police has doubled in some areas despite the recent introduction of tougher penalties.

Official figures released by the Home Office show the number of fines issued for using a hand-held device has gone up by 10 per cent across England and Wales in a year. But road safety campaigners fear the figures could be the tip of the iceberg because
police had fewer opportunities during the pandemic to catch drivers calling, texting or scrolling at the wheel due to the lockdowns which saw traffic plunge to 50 per cent of normal levels.

In some force areas, there was a dramatic rise in drivers being caught in the year to December 31, 2021, the latest figures available.

Cheshire Police recorded a doubling in penalties from 516 in 2020 to 1,031 drivers penalised last year.

Derbyshire Police also doubled the number of fines handed out from 57 in 2020 to 114 last year.

Scotland Yard caught the largest number of drivers, with 4,196 fined for using their mobiles last year, an 18 per cent rise on the previous year.

More than 1,000 fines were also handed out by officers in West Yorkshire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

Hand-held hazard: Drivers face a £200 fine and six points on their licence

But analysis of the figures by the AA also suggest that enforcement is not a priority in some forces.

Suffolk Police has handed out a total of only 22 penalties in the last three years, with officers stopping only six drivers on their phones in 2021.

The Daily Mail’s End The Mobile Madness campaign succeeded in tougher penalties for drivers who recklessly put the lives of others at risk by using their phones.

Following a change in the law in March, motorists can be stopped if they use a handheld mobile phone behind the wheel for any use, not just for telephoning someone.

This includes taking photos or videos, scrolling through music playlists, using sat nav, streaming services or playing games.

Drivers face a £200 fixed penalty notice and six points on their licence.

Since 2003 it has been an offence to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving in Britain, but the law was tightened after many motorists avoided prosecution by arguing they were not using it for ‘interactive communication’.

Despite this, thousands of drivers still continue to flout the ban including prominent figures.

Last month Security Minister Tom Tugendhat MP was handed a six-month driving ban after being caught using his phone.

Now MPs and road safety campaigners are calling for greater police enforcement, saying abuse is still ‘rampant’ on the roads.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael said: ‘These figures are deeply worrying. Drivers are clearly not getting the message. It suggests the number of accidents will also be going up.

‘The issue is people don’t think they will be caught if there isn’t a visible policing presence on the roads.

‘But officers up and down the country are too tied up in bureaucracy and paperwork rather than getting out there on the streets.
TWO-WEEK-OLD BABY DIED IN HIT-AND-RUN MOBILE CRASH

James Davis, 36, killed a two-week-old baby after driving at 67mph in a 30mph zone and crashing into a pram

James Davis, 36, killed a two-week-old baby after driving at 67mph in a 30mph zone and crashing into a pram

A hit-and-run driver was jailed for killing a two-week-old baby after crashing into a pram while he was on the phone.

James Davis, 36, was driving an unregistered BMW when he hit a car and mounted the pavement, killing Ciaran Leigh Morris on Easter Sunday last year.

Davis, who had an appalling record of driving offences, fled the scene in Brownhills, near Walsall, leaving the baby dying and his mother with a broken collar bone.

He was sentenced to six and a half years at Wolverhampton Crown Court in April for causing death by dangerous driving while uninsured, but this was increased to ten years after appeal after Suella Braverman QC, then attorney general, argued it was ‘
unduly lenient’.

‘These figures show increasing the penalty is not enough, we must see more visible policing as a deterrent.’

According to the road safety campaign Think, drivers are four times more likely to be in a crash if they are using a phone.

Reaction times are two times slower if you text and drive using a hands-free phone than if you drink drive, and this increases to three times if you are holding the device.

In 2020, 17 people were killed on Britain’s roads in crashes involving drivers distracted by mobile phones.

A further 114 people were seriously hurt and 385 were slightly injured, Department for Transport figures show.

Jack Cousens, head of roads policy for the AA, who analysed the figures, said yesterday: ‘Although fines for mobile phone use while driving continue their painfully slow decline, latest statistics from the Home Office show that abuse last year was
still rampant.

‘It is likely that illegal mobile phone use was worse than the figures suggest as the police were often tied up enforcing the lockdown – and many drivers probably thought they could get away with the offence because they expected to see fewer cops
out on the road.

‘Figures for 2022 could be a watershed moment for showing how well the message not to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving is being respected by drivers.

‘The law surrounding mobile phone use while driving has evolved to meaning just holding a device is enough to be penalised.’

Distraction: Drivers are four times as likely to be in a crash if they are using a phone, research shows

National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for roads policing, chief constable Jo Shiner, said: ‘We remain committed to reducing the harm caused by distracted driving. Through the NPCC strategy Policing our Roads Together we co-ordinate a national campaign
each year to remind drivers of both the penalties for and the consequences of, using their mobile phone illegally.

‘However, police officers take robust action to prosecute offenders every day and will continue to do so.

‘Personal responsibility is the starting point for safer roads. Abiding by the laws of the road, which are designed first and foremost to protect life, reduces the chances of being killed or seriously injured in a collision or causing a fatal or
serious collision.

‘Mobile phones have many more and more distracting features, it’s illegal to hold and use a phone while driving or riding a motorcycle. This means you must not use a device in your hand for any reason, whether online or offline. The penalty for this
can be you losing your licence.

‘Our message remains simple, a moment’s distraction can change innocent lives forever, don’t take the risk.’

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

In the past decade at least 205 people have been killed in Britain in
crashes involving drivers using handheld phones.

This is where the cycling community’s standard reason to counter
legislation regarding killing pedestrians can get trotted out: “Well, it’s only a handful, innit”.

Interestingly, 205 people being killed over a ten-year period is the same
as the number of cyclists in that time frame who are killed in
single-vehicle accidents. The cycling world isn’t clamouring for anything
to be done about it, unsurprisingly, so why are they so concerned about
this?


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

A new campaign is warning drivers across Lichfield and Burntwood not to use their mobile phones while driving.

Staffordshire Police said a crackdown was taking place alongside a national scheme highlighting the dangers of using mobiles behind the wheel.

Although it has been an offence since 2003, legislation introduced in 2017 means drivers caught now receive six points and a £200, while new drivers would lose their licence.

Figures revealed that 859 drivers were prosecuted across the Staffordshire Police during 2021 – with almost half of those driving a commercial vehicle at the time.

Inspector Mark Joynson said:

“Any kind of phone use can be distracting, taking your eyes off the road, even for a couple of seconds to check a notification or skip songs, can be dangerous as you can’t concentrate on two things at once.

“Using handsfree systems can be distracting too, so the safest thing to do is avoid using your mobile while driving and be phone free.

“Your friends, family, or work colleagues won’t mind waiting for a text, call or message if you’re driving – they would rather you got to your destination safely than not at all. If you need to make a call or text, park up somewhere safely
and turn the ignition off.

“If you’re caught using a phone at the wheel you could receive six points and a fine, and new drivers even have their licence removed by the courts.

“The message is simple, help us make Staffordshire’s roads safer by going phone free.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Drivers will be banned from using hand-held mobile phones as the government closes a loophole that allows motorists to check social media.

Calling and texting on hand-held phones while driving is already illegal, unless there is an emergency. But the changes mean it will soon be against the law for motorists to use a hand-held phone for virtually any reason behind the wheel.

From 2022, offenders face a £200 fine and six points on their licence for using a device to take photos or videos, play games or scroll through playlists.

The Highway Code will be updated to make it clear that being stationary in traffic counts as driving – and that handheld mobile phone use at traffic lights or in motorway jams is illegal except in very limited circumstances.

Motorists will still be allowed to use hands-free devices such as sat-navs and mobile phones if they are secured in a cradle. But they can face charges if police find them not in proper control of their vehicle.
The measures are being brought in following a public consultation showing overwhelming support for proposals to strengthen the law.

Transport secretary Grant Shapps said: “Too many deaths and injuries occur whilst mobile phones are being held.

“By making it easier to prosecute people illegally using their phone at the wheel, we are ensuring the law is brought into the 21st Century while further protecting all road users.”

The move follows years of campaigning from relatives of people killed by drivers using mobile phones at the wheel.

Mary Williams, chief executive of the road safety charity Brake, said the changes would were “very welcome” –especially “by families suffering bereavement and catastrophic injury due to drivers being distracted by phones”.

Motoring organisations have also welcomed the move. The RAC’s road safety spokesman Simon Williams called for the new law to be “vigorously enforced”.

He said: “As our phones have become more sophisticated, the law has not kept pace and this has allowed some drivers who have been using their handheld phones for purposes other than communicating to exploit a loophole and avoid the maximum penalty.

“Our research suggests that more than one-in-10 younger drivers admit to taking a photo or video while driving, while 6% say they have played a game.

“While today’s announcement is clearly good news, it’s absolutely vital that the new law is vigorously enforced otherwise there’s a risk that it won’t deliver the sort of behaviour change that will make our roads safer.”

President of the AA Edmund King said: “By making mobile phone use as socially unacceptable as drink-driving, we are taking big steps to make our roads safer. For years, the AA has campaigned hard and helped educate drivers to the dangers from bad
mobile phone use.

“To help ensure drivers get the message, we also need more cops in cars to help catch and deter those still tempted to pick up.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1961@gmail.com> wrote:

In a desperate attempt to gain attention, Mason posts an article from
Friday 19 November 2021

Drivers will be banned from using hand-held mobile phones as the
government closes a loophole that allows motorists to check social media.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

A new campaign is warning drivers across Lichfield and Burntwood not to use their mobile phones while driving.

Staffordshire Police said a crackdown was taking place alongside a national scheme highlighting the dangers of using mobiles behind the wheel.

Although it has been an offence since 2003, legislation introduced in 2017 means drivers caught now receive six points and a £200, while new drivers would lose their licence.

Figures revealed that 859 drivers were prosecuted across the Staffordshire Police during 2021 – with almost half of those driving a commercial vehicle at the time.

Inspector Mark Joynson said:

“Any kind of phone use can be distracting, taking your eyes off the road, even for a couple of seconds to check a notification or skip songs, can be dangerous as you can’t concentrate on two things at once.

“Using handsfree systems can be distracting too, so the safest thing to do is avoid using your mobile while driving and be phone free.

“Your friends, family, or work colleagues won’t mind waiting for a text, call or message if you’re driving – they would rather you got to your destination safely than not at all. If you need to make a call or text, park up somewhere safely
and turn the ignition off.

“If you’re caught using a phone at the wheel you could receive six points and a fine, and new drivers even have their licence removed by the courts.

“The message is simple, help us make Staffordshire’s roads safer by going phone free.”
Inspector Mark Johnson, Staffordshire Police

Of the figures released on those prosecuted in Staffordshire during 2021, 87% of the offenders were men.

https://lichfieldlive.co.uk/2022/02/19/new-crackdown-on-drivers-using-phones-at-the-wheel-as-figures-reveal-numbers-prosecuted-across-staffordshire/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

A new campaign is warning drivers across Lichfield and Burntwood not to
use their mobile phones while driving.

It isn’t new, it’s more stale news from Mason:

“by Lichfield Live 19th February, 2022”

https://lichfieldlive.co.uk/2022/02/19/new-crackdown-on-drivers-using-phones-at-the-wheel-as-figures-reveal-numbers-prosecuted-across-staffordshire/

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Penalties for using your mobile phone whilst driving or riding a motorcycle have increased to 6 points on your licence and a £200 fine. This means that new drivers who passed their driving test within the last 2 years will lose their licence and fully
qualified drivers will be half way to a 6-month licence ban, if a further 6 points are accumulated within 3 years. You may also be liable for a maximum fine of £1,000 or £2,500 if you are driving a lorry or bus.

Which devices am I not allowed to use?

The term “mobile phone” may mean more than you think. The law applies to any device capable of communicating through mobile networks, Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, including but not limited to: smartphones, tablets and iPods. Whilst mobile phone use is illegal
when driving or riding a motorcycle, the law still applies if you are stopped at traffic lights, queuing in traffic or supervising a learner driver.

What is meant by mobile phone “use”?

The word “use” includes, but is not limited to: telephone calling (including holding your phone out on loudspeaker), text messaging, watching videos, searching on the internet and posting on or scrolling through social media. Therefore, you should
think twice before changing music tracks or volume, playing games and using maps on your mobile device. If you are simply holding your phone, even if you are not using it, it is illegal.


What is allowed?

You may only use your mobile phone if you are safely parked with the engine switched off or if you need to call 999 or 112 in an emergency and it is unsafe or impractical to stop. Otherwise, you may only use your device if it has hands-free access. You
may use the following:



A Bluetooth headset
Voice command
A dashboard holder


Devices with such hands-free access may include: smart watches and other various voice-activated software. Satellite Navigation Systems are also permissible, providing it is mounted in a hands-free holder. Similarly, you can play music in your vehicle
but only if mounted in a hands-free holder or connected by Bluetooth. However, in some circumstances, it is still forbidden to use your device even if your phone is mounted in a hands-free holder or connected to Bluetooth, for example, if you are
scrolling through social media or searching the internet. You should be aware that you must still be in full control of the vehicle at all times when using hands-free. The police can stop you if they think this is not the case and you may be prosecuted.


If you receive a summons to court in the post or are at risk of accumulating 12 points on your licence, contact our Crime Department for legal advice.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)