Car Wink is a device that features on the KickStarter website and is seeking backers. As I type, this project has 679 supporters pledging $102,255. Take a look here;

Now you’ve had a look what do you think?

I’m quite clear. This is a bad idea. Driving is a complex blend of hand, eye, and mind coordination. To do it properly and ensure the safety of yourself and others it requires your full attention all the time.

Our roads are already littered with drivers using their mobile phones for countless purposes. Calls, texts, email, WhatsApp messages, Snapchat, Twitter, Facebook, live streaming and much much more. People are dying on our roads because of these distractions. A study by TRL in 2002 concluded that hands free calls increased reaction times more than drivers at the drink drive limit.

Based on this information it is quite apparent that some offences we know and readily accept to be dangerous (drink drive) are actually less impactful than hand held phone use and even, the legally endorsed, hands free use.

The legislation, as it stands, has actually encouraged distracted driving. Is it any surprise that road deaths are increasing? Not just nationally but internationally?

The problem we have is that technology and the next new thing is seductive. The next new iPhone leads to countless people dashing to the store on the launch date. When Pokémon Go was launched everybody wanted it. Even those who had never played it before. Cars are being kitted out with more and more technology. It’s sold to us on the basis it “adds” to the driving experience or makes life simpler so we can concentrate on driving. The “candy” is irresistible to us. The reality is that many infotainment systems are marketed to us as such when what they actually do is simply increase unnecessary distractions in the car.

Distracted driving is not new. However, technology is increasingly adding burdens into the driving environment that are totally unnecessary. Phones, infotainment systems and connectivity to the internet. Distractions that take eyes from the road. Distractions that can lead to death or serious injury.

Nationally the UK police tackle the #Fatal4. Drink drive/drug drive, seatbelts, speed, and mobile phone use. Mobile phone use in the traditional sense is easy to detect. Other uses and voice commands are distractions that are much harder to detect in the traditional ways. Is that a Sat Nav you can see in the car ahead or are they live streaming?

So here we have the Car Wink. A device that allows you to communicate with the driver behind you by the use of emojis. It looks novel. It looks unique and it looks fun. Furthermore this group are marketing it as a great way to reduce road rage, promote driver courtesy and even, if you’ve watched the video to the end, a chance to initiate new encounters and maybe even relationships from. What an absolute nirvana this will engender! Utter, utter poppycock!

To operate the driver adds another cognitive load into the already busy arena of driving by utilising voice commands. The manufacturer will, of course, claim this therefore makes it safe – (because your hands are on the wheel) and glibly falls into the trap the legislation has created. Voice dictation commands then determine what emoji you want to display to the driver behind. Instead of, perhaps, just raising your hand and acknowledging the other drivers courtesy.

Ask yourself a question. Is this absolutely necessary? Put to one side the geeky, must have, want to have desire (if it does that for you) and be realistic. Do you “need” it? The answer, if you have any common sense at all, will be a resounding no.

The Car Wink is just another distraction. Another burden that will take drivers attention away from their primary function. Driving the car!

This is a gadget that marketers will make you think you need yet in reality it is a device you should be avoiding at all costs. The problem we have is that the manufacturer believes it to be a great idea and 697 other people think so too. This only goes to prove one thing. Distracted driving is going to remain a huge issue until people see the danger for themselves and the campaigning about the risks must continue.

There are 4 key changes;

1. More independent driving.
2. Following sat nav directions.
3. New reversing manoeuvres.
4. Answer a vehicle safety question when you’re driving.

The changes are controversial as the examiners who are part of the Public and Commercial Services Union have staged a 48hr walk out as of today. There appear to be a number of factors revolving around the whole issue but one element is in regard to item 3 above. This falls into the ‘reversing your vehicle’ section and candidates will have to perform one of the following;

• parallel park at the side of the road
• park in a parking bay – either by driving in and reversing out, or reversing in and driving out (the examiner will tell you which you have to do)
• pull up on the right-hand side of the road, reverse for around 2 car lengths, and rejoin the traffic

It would seem that it is the final option that is causing difficulty. If we look at this in detail it is saying the driver will pull to the offside (the right-hand side) of the road against the flow of oncoming traffic and come to a stop. They will then reverse for a short distance. Once complete the driver will pull away, back across the flow of traffic and rejoin the correct side of the road.

There are lots of arguments and discussions around these changes and one of the main points I’ve seen consistently arising is that of bringing the test up to date and more in line with modern driving. Have you ever parked with your drivers side to the kerb and facing oncoming traffic? I know I have and I know of countless others who have too. There is a whole body of evidence every time we go out on the roads that confirms this is regular practice by drivers. It is easy to argue that this behaviour is normalised and it is therefore practical and sensible to test our new drivers on something they will no doubt end up doing.

Yet there is a slight issue around this and that comes in the form of the Highway Code.

Rule 239 of the Highway Code is quite clear. In fact it is the first item in the bullet list. It is important to note that the Highway Code is not law. Breaches of the code though can engender evidence that will support other offences. The code is also interpreted differently where it uses the terms ‘do not’ and MUST. In this case ‘do not park facing against the traffic flow’ is saying not to do it… but is lesser in its forcefulness than if it were ‘you MUST not park facing against the traffic flow’.

The issue of course is that the Highway Code is essential reading for all new drivers. Understanding the rules, the signs and all the advice and instructions therein. Whilst parking against the traffic flow is common it is, in many ways, a lack of respect for the Highway Code in this area that existing drivers already have. We have lapsed into bad habits. If parking in such a way is contrary to the code then the question has to be asked as to why we are now examining our new drivers  on this manoeuvre?

Driving, the infrastructure, signage and our vehicles are changing  all the time. It stands to reason that the Highway Code and the driving test and even the licensing system cannot stand still. They have to move with the times. As this reversing test is now part of the practical driving test it would make sense that the code was to be updated to remove this section in 239. Yet that hasn’t happened. I’ve yet to see a statement that says ‘The Highway Code is subject to review in Jan 2018 and this matter will be addressed then’. As it stands it has simply been brought in. By doing so it sets a very poor example to our new drivers by teaching them that ignoring the Highway Code is perfectly acceptable, in fact endorsed by the Govt and the examining body. How many other rules will new drivers consequently believe are not applicable to them?

This argument will no doubt boil on for some time and I will be interested to see what solution is eventually agreed upon.

The second factor for me is that of a sat nav. I discussed this on a live video broadcast a few days ago. I concluded that sat nav’s are a modern part of our driving set up. I have a strong geographical knowledge. I can look at a map, determine a route and generally get myself to the destination or within a stones throw without any further assistance. However, many people don’t have that knowledge and sat nav’s filled that gap. Notwithstanding a few navigational issues now and then, particularly with HGV’s in small tight villages, they are a useful tool to get people from A to B. As this equipment is readily available and widely used it is logical that we test new drivers with it. We can then ensure they know how to use this equipment safely. This involves but is not limited to; programming before setting off, only ever glancing at the screen, always stopping if adjustments are needed. By doing so we can embed the right attitude and behaviour from the start?

A contrary argument arising today was one around cognitive load. This is something I discuss regularly with #DontStreamAndDrive where drivers are adding mental load to an already mentally challenging arena. This can easily be aligned to the ‘conscious competence learning model’.

On passing my test my Dad said to me, “Congratulations you have passed your test. You must now spend the next 2 years learning how to drive”. I’d passed my test and demonstrated the required standards but his point was that I didn’t know everything. He was right. Only experience and time on the road brings that. I think it’s fair to say that some of our new drivers will be at the ‘conscious incompetence’ level. Others will be in the ‘conscious competence’ section e.g. they can drive but they have to apply a lot of thought to everything for it all to come together. Traffic, steering, gears, speed, pedestrians, road signs, other road users and more. With all this mental processing (multi-tasking) going on is there space for sat nav? If we add the sat nav into the equation are we adding additional cognitive load on our young drivers that means something vitally important like good observations will fall off the other end?

An acquaintance of mine Cath Knibbs , a CyberTrauma Researcher/Consultant and Child and Adult Trauma Pscyhotherapist said today; “I can imagine how this would feel – overloaded and this creates panic and less coherent decision making.. let’s not give a novice the master craftsman job?”

Cath makes a very valid point. Police constables start with shoplifters and minor drug possession arrests and investigations. They don’t start with rape, murder or complex fraud. It takes time to build skill and experience with a slow drip feed of additional skills as time goes on. A new PC would be dropped in at the deep end with such complex enquiries with no hope of surviving. We can apply this to the driving arena. However, with the proliferation of in car tech, stand alone sat nav’s and mobile phone functionality this boat has already sailed. The tech is there and new drivers are going to use it whether we like it or not. It therefore makes sense to teach them how to use it properly from the outset instead of trying to correct embedded bad behaviour later.

If we are setting new drivers off on the right foot by doing so then maybe there is scope to bring the dangers of mobile phone use into the test too?

This whole debate has led me into the graduated driving licence debate. I will blog on this issue in due course.

featured image credit; Getty Images

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve posted a link to a court case and a conviction for death by dangerous driving and been bombarded with tweets from people stating the conviction is just not enough.

No matter how long or short the sentence imposed upon such a driver is it will never bring back the person who lost their life. It will never fill the gap in the family that has been created by such tragic loss nor ease the pain and the grief.

As the current legislation stands the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving (s1 offence) is 14yrs imprisonment.  That said the sentencing guidelines are complex and many considerations have to be taken into account by the judge before he/she can determine the relevant ‘starting point’. Once this is done the judge must consider any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors, reductions for a guilty plea and more. The current sentencing guidelines in full are here for the s1 offence.

Sentences are consequently quite varied. This driver escaped jail altogether, this driver was jailed for two years and Tomasz Kroker who killed 3 children and an adult was sentenced to 10 years.

Considering the devastation caused by Kroker it is quite surprising to many that a maximum tariff was not imposed but when you look at the sentencing guidelines you can see how it gets reduced down in some cases. Many families have said that the sentences handed down are insufficient. The driver who killed their loved one will spend a couple of years in jail, the rest on early release and then get on with their life. They on the other hand face a life sentence of grief and pain.

The issue of course is that the courts must be dispassionate when sentencing offenders and not driven by the emotion of the family or indeed the public. However, it has been a campaign issue for many individuals and groups over the years that the maximum sentence for the s1 offence be increased. There have also been many arguments about the validity of the s1 offence in some cases over charges for manslaughter or murder. The Government have eventually reacted to these concerns and in December 2016 launched a consultation. Over 9000 people submitted their thoughts and the government have now responded. The news item can be found here.

In summary a life sentence will now be the maximum sentence for those who cause death by dangerous driving ‘and’ careless drivers who kill whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. A new offence of causing serious injury through careless driving will also be introduced. Ministers confirm that drivers who cause death by speeding, racing or using a mobile phone could face penalties equivalent to manslaughter seeing a rise from 14yrs to life.

This is a massive shift for road policing legislation but before we all celebrate we need to consider that sentencing guidelines will still apply and life actually meaning life will be few and far between if ever. Dangerous driving is one of those offences that is committed by people from all backgrounds. Many with no previous criminal history at all and as such a life sentence on first conviction may be unattainable. They key factor in determining the length of any sentence imposed will be where the sentencing ‘starting point’ sits.

My view is that a life behind bars with no chance of parole is highly unlikely. I’m of the belief that life sentences will be handed down with a minimum tariff. As a hypothetical example.. Kroker may have been given a life sentence with a minimum tariff of 15yrs. He would then be eligible for parole and release on a life licence. Only time will tell how this will eventually start to be imposed.

This new legislation, when enacted, is going to see a lot of people facing some fairly hefty prison sentences, even on first conviction. The dangers of drug and drink driving are well known but many people do not comprehend or grasp the very real dangers of using a phone for any purpose at all. For every drink or drug driver there are hundreds of drivers who will happily use their phone behind the wheel. I honestly believe that more and more collisions involving phones will occur and I also believe that advancing technology will enable police to detect with even greater accuracy what purpose a phone was being put to at the time of a collision.

The message is quite clear. If you drive dangerously then the courts are going to have some very hefty sentences at their disposal and you could find yourself behind bars for life.

The broadcast on Periscope has now had over 4200 views. You can watch a slightly reduced version below… otherwise read on.

Mobile cameras with ability to record are nothing new but over recent years the technology has made huge advancements in terms of size and cost.

The first traffic police car I ever drove that had in car video was in 1999. The camera was a huge piece of kit mounted inside the car, on the roof, near to the rear view mirror. It was huge and permanently fixed. I dread to think what injuries it would have caused if a driver or passengers head came into contact with it in the event of a collision. The recording facility was the height of sophistication. A VHS recorder fitted into the boot.

Time has moved on. The size of the cameras has reduced dramatically. The ability to record onto small portable memory and ever cheaper technology has put the dashcam within the reach of most people. There are, of course, varying standards and cost and you will always sacrifice quality, size and storage space for a cheaper price.  In some cases they are now being fitted into new cars as standard or as an optional extra.

So will a dashcam be a game changer for road safety? Let’s think about a simple scenario.

*******************************

You are alone driving along a straight stretch of A road. You are travelling at 50mph and up ahead you can see a bend. There are throw over arrows that lead to a solid white line system. Then in your rear view mirror you see a car and it’s coming up fast. You look ahead and realise the bend and the solid white lines are close. The car pulls out and flies past you but you are now in the solid white line zone and the other car is entering the bend on the wrong side of the lines. Suddenly a 14ton stone lorry is coming the other way. A collision between the other car and the truck is inevitable. You stamp on the brakes and the car in front cuts across your front, narrowly avoiding the truck and speeds off around the bend. As the sound of the trucks air horn fades into the distance you have just enough time to make a mental note of the cars registration.

Many of you reading this will have been in a similar situation. You’re furious. The driver of the car has put your life, their life and the truck drivers life at risk. It’s totally unacceptable.

You are so fired up and angry about this you call the police, report the driver to them and pass the registration number to them. You want this driver to be spoken to before they kill someone.

*******************************

In times gone by, (and maybe some forces still do it) the police would have taken this information and dutifully gone to see the driver of the other car. The officer attending knows the matter will not go anywhere but maybe some time spent invested with this driver will save lives or change their behaviour. There is no doubt that this is a possible positive outcome.

What happens though is the driver claims not to know what the police officer is talking about. The driver states he made a perfectly sensible overtake. In fact if anything the other car saw him making the overtake and deliberately speeded up.

The officer then spends 20-30 minutes on the phone to you explaining that the other drivers account conflicts with yours and why no action can be taken. The officer listens to how angry you are, sympathises with the situation and wonders about whether they will get a break today.

Overall this job has eaten into a lot of police time but for what outcome? Nothing.

For some time now I have been refusing to deploy officers to such incidents and just explained from the start that we cannot prove the offence and the evidence provided by the witness is uncorroborated. The phone call is much the same and you are still angry.. probably more angry because the police are doing nothing.. but in the long run it allows officers to focus on more pressing matters.

Now roll in the dashcam. This is where they become a game changer. Imagine the above scenario but then consider that you have a dashcam recording everything ahead of you. It captures the road, the conditions, the road markings, the car making it’s dangerous overtake and how close that truck actually was. Conveniently it also records the registration plate of the offending vehicle. All good and your verbal account is now corroborated by video evidence.

So why when you ring up the police is the outcome the same.. no action? Historically that has often been the case. This is essentially because forces around the country have not been prepared, able or willing to accept video evidence from members of the public. This has always been a bit of an issue for me within policing. We accept CCTV from shops and the motorway cameras. We accept CCTV from peoples homes if it helps prove or assist in the prosecution of an offence. We have even taken footage from cameras in similar circumstances. As an example, Cheshire Police secured a conviction against this motorcyclist using footage the rider himself had recorded and then posted to YouTube!

On a trip to Bournemouth with @constablechaos I used my phone to record a driver in lane one of the M40 using his mobile phone. A phone call to Thames Valley Police led to me providing a statement and sending them the video evidence. The driver admitted the offence and was sent on a course.

Dashcams are also being installed by businesses to protect them from false claims. We also know from the Tomasz Kroker case that they can also be used to prosecute the driver they are there to protect.

Many people have spoken to me on this topic and explained that they have found it very hard to get forces to accept their footage. There could be a whole combination of reasons for this and not solely restricted to staff to review, storage capabilities and administration.

This is slowly but surely changing though. As more drivers obtain dashcams the requests to submit footage have increased. Footage from trucks, cars and cyclists are all being put forward and offered as evidence and forces are getting better at accepting it. North Wales Police were the trailblazers in this area with Operation Snap My own force have now also opened up a portal for dashcam submissions. At the recent TISPOL conference the head of road policing in Cheshire reported on the success of this and 20-30 prosecutions a week.

I am sure that other forces will soon follow these leads and do likewise. However, CC Anthony Bangham (West Mercia Police and NPCC Roads Policing Lead) said at the same conference that he was exploring the possibility of a national platform for dashcam submissions. He also talked of “Professional Guardians”. Utilising trusted road safety professionals to provide footage they capture from their trucks, coaches and public service vehicles. There are some criticisms of this idea but I believe there is no reason why it cannot work if it is set up, resourced and staffed correctly.

The dashcam is only going to become more important to us in a road safety capacity. Drivers of cars now need to consider their actions and think carefully about the very real possibility that their driving is being recorded. Would the driver have made that overtake if you had been a police car? Of course not. With the proliferation of dashcams maybe it is time for drivers to start looking at every other car on the road and consider it to be a police car.

On 12th August 2015 Christopher Gard sent a text message to his friend about going for a walk with his friend’s dog. He was driving at the time and whilst his eyes were off the road he crashed into and killed a cyclist. He was sent to prison for 9 years.

Both cases outline the catastrophic consequences that can so easily occur when drivers use their phone behind the wheel. People who use their mobile phone whilst driving are a very real danger to themselves and every other road user.

In a recent survey by the RAC it was found that attitudes are changing but not in the right direction. Drivers who felt taking a quick call was acceptable increased from 7% to 14%. Those who felt safe checking social media whilst driving increased from 14% to 20%. To compound these issues further the number of prosecutions over the last 5 years has almost halved from 178k in 2011/12 to only 95k in 2015. The net result is an increasing likelihood of offending whilst the chances of actually being caught and prosecuted is reducing.

Over the years the penalty for a car driver using a phone has gradually increased and in March 2017 doubled to a £200 fine and 6 penalty points. What hasn’t changed is the actual offence itself. This still revolves around a phone being ‘hand held’. As such handsfree operation is, as far as this offence is concerned, completely legal.

When the legislation was first introduced phones were very simple devices capable of making calls and sending text messages. The offence very simplistically focused on ensuring the drivers hands were where they should be (on the steering wheel) and not on the level of distraction a call can engender. Any reasonable person will agree that a quick 15 second handsfree call to say you are on your way home is vastly different to a 20 minute business call or an argument with your partner. This wider distraction is not something the legislation ever covered.

If this danger wasn’t enough, phones have now evolved into powerful pocket sized computers capable of a vast array of functions. In addition to calls and texts they have a multitude of apps that vie for our attention with notifications and alerts presented on large high definition screens. As the devices have changed our reliance upon them has increased too. Our desire to be informed and up to date has reached such a state that we have developed an ‘always on’ culture. Our devices have become an extension of ourselves and we have been led to a place where many suffer with FOMO (fear of missing out). We cannot leave our devices alone and when an alert sounds we are inextricably drawn to read it, sometimes regardless of the very obvious dangers.

We are now entering an era where cars have functionality built into them that allows phone applications to appear on the media screen within the vehicle. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are two examples that deliver mobile phone functionality into the driving arena. We are easily seduced by new technology but we would be wise to sit back for a moment and seriously think about what functionality we actually need whilst driving a car. At present these devices are limited to SatNav, calls, texts and music. CarPlay also allows access to Spotify. This can easily be seen as combining, in one place, all the functions we may enjoy from different devices already in our cars.

Simplistically this would appear to be logical progression but how long before other applications become available including social media and livestreaming applications? Without exception these products are marketed on the basis they make driving safer whilst giving the driver access to more information and all those things that are important to them. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Driving is a complex blend of hand, eye and foot coordination and demands our full attention. Advances in mobile phone and in-car technology have always focused on keeping the hands on the wheel and voice activation/control has been a big driver in enabling this situation. This has engendered a belief that keeping our hands on the wheel will therefore deliver a safer drive. Whilst in singularity this cannot be denied there are other factors at play that are close to being abandoned by the driver distracted by a phone.

In 2002 TRL conducted research into the use of phones by drivers both hand held and hands free. This was benchmarked against drink driving (a known dangerous driving practice). The results indicated that certain aspects of driving performance are impaired more by using a phone than having a blood /alcohol level above the current drink drive limit. The study reinforced all the concerns about mobile phone use by drivers. TRL concluded that;

“Drivers need to be strongly discouraged from engaging in any phone use while behind the wheel”

The evidence points to what has been known for a long time. Having our hands on the wheel alone does not engender safe driving. Our eyes and our mind need to be on the road too. Devices and technology in cars are increasingly providing ‘eye candy’ and feeding our desire to be connected all the time. They are creating an easy distraction that takes the drivers attention away from where it should be and consequently the risk of fatal and serious injury road traffic accidents increases as a result.

Some news outlets reacted to the RAC report by describing the use of phones by drivers as a pandemic. When coupled with the significant reduction in prosecutions it was argued it was a pandemic running unchecked.

Nothwithstanding the pending increases, some quarters are calling for stiffer penalties for those caught. Others are calling for technology advances that prevent drivers using a phone whilst the car is in motion. Both are riddled with complications. A car that isolates the driver’s phone may also isolate any the passengers may have. A driver could of course simply have two phones and bypass the safety features. It has been evidenced that using a phone whilst driving can be equivalent to drink driving and yet the penalty for drink driving is significantly harsher. Would an increase to bring mobile phone use in line with drink driving help reduce its prevalence? In some regards yes. However, we know that education, penalty and enforcement are all essential factors in changing behaviour. This final factor requires the fear of being caught . It would seem from the numbers admitting to using phones coupled with reduced prosecutions that the fear of being caught is quite low.

The government have gradually increased the penalties for drivers caught using a phone whilst driving. The evidence to show it is as dangerous as drink driving has been available since 2002 yet 14 years later the penalty is some distance from the two matters reaching equal footing. Education by many road safety organisations such as Brake and national media/social media coverage continue to highlight the dangers. Regular enforcement action by the police helps to tackle the issue but the reduced numbers of traffic officers across the country is likely to be contributory factor in the dwindling number of prosecutions being brought. In a time of austerity it would take a considerable amount of investment from the government to allow Chief Constables the flexibility to dedicate resources to tackle this issue more aggressively.

Technology will continue to evolve and in years to come a realistic prospect on how to manage phone use in cars will no doubt become a reality. However, in the interim people are dying on our roads every day. The solution is simple in theory but complex in application in that it needs multiple stakeholders buy in to move forward. Changing the mindset of today’s drivers is hard because behavior engendered by ‘handsfree is legal therefore ok’, is embedded deeply. It is not impossible but, as we know from 50 years of drink drive campaigning, it takes many years for the impact to be seen. Regular innovative campaigns, sensitive highlighting of tragedies stemming from phone use and encouraging people to take pledges such as the Brake Pledge all help. Manufacturers should be encouraged, maybe even required, to wind back on the ever increasing use of unnecessary technology in cars that seems to prioritise profit and novelty over safety. A recent survey by Brake has shown overwhelmingly that distracted drivers are considered by many to be the biggest danger on our roads. Drivers need to understand the degree of impairment using a phone engenders and that driving safely is far more than just being handsfree. Passengers need to comprehend the dangers and feel empowered to challenge drivers using their phone.

Only if everyone works together will we see positive change in the use of phones by drivers. The government, police, manufacturers, road safety organisations and the public must all combine their efforts to effect change. The original mobile phone offence making handsfree use legal was misinformed and set us down the wrong road. A road we have been travelling since 2003 and it’s going to take some considerable back peddling to get us back on track. However, it’s a journey we have to make because peoples lives depend upon it.