Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I’m getting increasingly angry about the drivers I see on their phones and how dangerous they are. I’ve had so many dangerous situations recently when crossing main roads because drivers just don’t stop. Even when on a green man or at a zebra crossing. You can see their eyes are looking down at their phone and not at the road. The same with trying to cross the road in stationary traffic, I recently had one move forward at me without looking up from their phone, I had to jump back and banged on his window as he passed. He called me the c word instead of apologising for nearly running me over. 
 

Why don’t the police do anything? Whenever I walk along past cars queuing it seems about half the drivers are on their phone. The police could have a busy day fining all the drivers and I’d feel a lot safer knowing they’re not likely to be on their phones again. I just don’t get why this is tolerated when it is illegal and so dangerous?  

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/351033-drivers-on-their-phones/
Share on other sites

Because it is not a priority for the police, but they do take action, many 1000s are prosecuted each year, the numbers were fallen due no doubt social pressures as well as increased number of points and no doubt the size of the fine.

Interesting reading here:  https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/seatbelt-and-mobile-phone-use-surveys-2023/mobile-phone-use-by-drivers-england-2023

I'm on the road almost daily and I see maybe twenty or thirty a year, of course 20 or 30 too many.  The above report shows that it is vans more than cars and two thirds holding the phone as opposed to having it to the ear, many no doubt texting, or on dating sites (that last comment is not facetious). 

As an experienced cyclist I can tell from the driving more often than not that they are on their phone, and tell them to get off it.  Others I know will record this on their helmet cam and pass onto the police.

Yes it is dangerous and yes government should consider what more can be done.  I personally think it is dreadful behaviour.  But if you go to some countries it is the norm.

This could be used at speed awareness courses, schools, public information campaigns, test centres etc.   from the film Whiplash where he has a bad crash after just being on his phone.  [edited removed as it is rather graphic

 

Edited by malumbu
  • Thanks 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...