“We’re walking” I replied. “Mum is taking the girls to school and college so we can walk”. His response was not positive.

Anyway, he has recently got into riding a bike. He has been a late developer in this area but suddenly got interested when he saw the fun that could be had with one and that the grandson of a neighbour (about 4yrs old) could ride and he couldn’t. He was pretty much shamed into it but has picked it up very quickly. He has had a small loaner bike for a while to learn but he is now riding much better and Grandma has bought him a shiny new one for his birthday. He loves it. As we took the first steps down the front lawn I stopped and suggested he may like to go on his bike instead. He leapt at the idea.

A few moments later the bike was out of the garage and the helmet was on. He was set to go. We live in a very small village but as with every other town and city it gets busy with traffic during the school runs. He cycled out of our lane and up the hill to the main road in the village. He waited for me and he then cycled slowly along the road toward school with me walking closely behind him. Traffic behind him held back and waited patiently. Then when safe it passed. There were pedestrians on the footpath and crossing the road ahead of him. As we approached the village shop there were more cars, some turning in front of him and others coming the other way. Parking, reversing and much manoeuvring. The road was quite congested with this traffic and parked cars and a large delivery truck was making matters more complex.

He took it all in his stride and filtered off to head in the direction of the school. More traffic and more pedestrians. There were also lots of cars parked along one side of the road. This constricts the road and means traffic can only flow one way at a time. Children are being pulled from car seats by harassed parents and in many cases this is done into the road… not onto the footpath. Other children are running and playing along the footpath and some are stepping out between parked cars with the intention to cross.

Cars are jockeying for parking spaces and other parents are trying to pull out and head for home, work or the pilates class! Owners of the houses close to the school are pulling off their drives wishing they had set off to work 30 minutes earlier.

Further ahead an additional obstruction is caused by the school minibuses and taxi’s that bring children from the outlying villages. This creates a chicane type situation with the parked vehicles. Some parents who are impatient or just plain selfish pull up in the middle of the road and simply deposit their children by the gate before driving off causing an additional obstruction and delays to everyone else. 

The scene is one of intense activity and for drivers and other road users there are potential hazards in every direction. This is a very small village. If you take this scenario and put it in a city the issues and hazards will increase.

Having started with my boy on his bike I’m now going to leave him and focus on drivers. He was essentially another hazard to the drivers. This is an important word when it comes to driving. Hazard.

Hazard recognition, hazard perception, hazard avoidance.

Picture this scene or draw on your own memories and experiences of similar situations. Busy roads bursting with traffic, pedestrians and risk. The driver of every vehicle has to have their wits about them. A collision is only ever moments away. Just a momentary lapse in concentration can lead to an event that will stay with you for the rest of your life. The unpredictable event where a child dashes across the road to their friend and thinks not about the oncoming car. If your concentration is not where it should be at that crucial moment….. 

Distracted driving kills. We know this for a fact. We know that many people have been seriously injured or killed on our roads by drivers who are focussed on their phones and not on their driving. Christopher Gard, Tomasz Kroker, Peter Morrison, Dorel Galan, David Wagstaff and many more. I would argue that ALL these drivers knew the risks. ALL these drivers knew the dangers. Yet ALL these drivers took that risk anyway.

As a week long campaign tackling mobile phone use by drivers runs across the UK it is a good time to look at this behaviour. You cannot imagine the hazard rich environment detailed above and then think that a driver is not distracted if they are messing with their phone. Hand held or hands free. They are distracted and tragedy is heartbeat away. 

But we have further problems. Car manufacturers are increasingly building cars with more tech and clever infotainment systems that hook up to the drivers phone and offer even more options and distractions. The only place for a phone whilst driving is in the phone compartment (formerly known as the glove box). Yet manufacturers build and sell us cars that have a massive amount of phone connectivity and promote it as being safe because it’s ‘hands free’. This is simply not the case and hands free calls and sending texts have already been proven to increase reaction times more than a driver at the drink drive limit.

Project EDWARD ran this week. A European wide campaign to reduce road deaths across Europe to zero. Whilst many road safety organisations and police forces/agencies are trying to reduce deaths on our roads manufacturers are actually increasing the likelihood of them.

Then… along comes something new. The internet of things has been a topic of discussion for a while.. you can now get internet enabled TV, fridges and washing machines that can be controlled from an app on your phone from the other side of the world. You can turn on your lights, switch on the heating and draw the curtains at home whilst you are still 30 miles away. Many people have also been drawn into the world of Alexa. Amazon’s voice activated virtual assistant. It sits in your home and you tell it what you want and it can do it for you. Very clever stuff… not infallible … but clever. Alexa.. turn the lights down, Alexa, do I need more milk, Alexa is the washing machine still running and so on. I’ve not really got into this area of technology at all but it has become very popular and is now set to invade another area of our lives and the consequences could be huge.

Introducing Alexa for your car. Echo Auto. 

I have to ask one question. Why?

The article points out that manufacturers are already getting excited about this development including Toyota, Ford, Lexus, BMW and Audi. Of course it will give satnav type traffic info and will play music…. but you can also tell it do all those things that you can do with your home device. As the article says.. add things to your shopping list and integrate with your smart home devices.

Amazon cannot escape from the fact that this is designed for drivers. A passenger can use the apps on the phone to do such stuff if necessary. We cannot get drivers to put their phones down. Why on earth would we add another unnecessary piece of tech into our our cars. Amazon are introducing a new piece of kit that doesn’t make driving safer… it just gives drivers even more things to contend with and do whilst driving.. instead of perhaps what they should be doing. Concentrating on their driving.

Imagine the headlines… child killed outside school by driver who was ordering milk via Alexa. Serious head on collsion whilst driver tells Alexa to turn the heating off at home. None of this stuff is relevant to driving and can only bring further tragedy to families across the world. 

Amazon will of course add their disclaimers and state it shouldn’t be used whilst driving…. but knowing full well that’s what people will do. In the meantime they will make money on the back of other peoples stupidity and people will die as a consequence.

The article adds further icing to the distracted driving cake by then saying it will cost you $50… but if you are an early adopter you can get it for $25 this year. So you can have a 50% discount and be a tester for Amazon and potentially kill or seriously injure someone in the process.

We cannot and will not make positive steps in the right direction in reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads whilst car manufacturers and the likes of Amazon continue to put profit before human lives.

I have said many times that this is an amazing campaign and give it my full support. Many people quibble and say that zero is an unobtainable result. I readily accept that it is a big ask but I love it because it is the only target we should be aiming for. Not a 20% or 50% reduction but aiming to eradicate it. Even if we never ever get there it is still the target to aim for.

Those of you that have followed me or other policing accounts for some time will know of the #Fatal4. The biggest causes of deaths on our roads.

• Drink/drug drive
• No seatbelt
• Mobile phone use
• Excess speed

By addressing our own behaviour and challenging those around us we can all make a huge difference to the number of people seriously injured or killed on our roads.

Take a look at the linked article below. Both driver and passenger were not wearing seatbelts. The driver wanted her phone. As she was driving the question has to be why? However, the passenger couldn’t find it. Instead of pulling over to search for and use the phone before continuing her journey she did something else. She began to hunt for it herself. The outcome is no surprise and totally totally avoidable.

Your full attention can only be in one place whilst driving. On your driving. This woman needlessly lost her life through her own actions. It could easily have been a double fatal.

Totally and completely avoidable.

A life wasted.

News article

Image via @CaymanNews

Using a phone hand held whilst driving is incredibly dangerous and significantly increases the risks of being involved in a collision.

So how about using two phones hand held whilst driving? That’s just what police in New South Wales, Australia have had to deal with.

The driver was spotted by an officer using a DSLR and a powerful zoom lens. Details were passed to mobile patrols and the driver was stopped.

“The traffic was slow and I was trying to run my business” he said.

On a recent broadcast for my #31DaysLive series I explained how road deaths in New South Wales are 38% higher than the U.K. Yet it seems this not without some considerable enforcement. In 2016/17 financial year the NSW police prosecuted nearly 41,000 drivers. NSW has a population of of approximately 8 million people. In contrast, in the first 12 months since the penalties increases in the U.K. in March 2017 were introduced, there have only been 26,000 prosecutions. When we remember the U.K. has a population in excess of 60 million people a few things become clear.

• Like us, and elsewhere in the world, NSW has a serious problem with road deaths and distracted driving caused by phone use.
• Here in the U.K. were are not even scratching the surface of this serious and potentially deadly practice

 <li>The news report from <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/2018/08/16/15/28/truck-driver-caught-with-two-phones-nsw-police-crackdown-mobile-blitz">9News can be read here</a></li>pic credit : 9 News Sydney <a href="http://www.twitter.com/9newssyd">@9NewsSyd</a>

During the broadcast I made reference to a pathetic article written by Richard Littlejohn along the same lines and how it had been pulled apart, piece by piece in a blog by NathanConstable who was on Twitter at that time.I’m pleased to say that NC has been in touch and shared his blog text with me. It is reproduced below and all credit to a to NC for the work.

For a number of years Richard Littlejohn has been barracking the police response to a range of incidents from the safety of his study and sharing his views in the pages of the Daily Mail. Mr Littlejohn is a great hater of “political correctness” and “elf n safety.” His typical themes are that the police have either sprung into total inaction because of some bureaucracy or that they have completely overreacted to something which could have been sorted out in seconds if anyone had applied common sense.

A while back he was barking loudly about the “heavy handed” response to a male claiming to have a device strapped to himself. The picture on his column showed a balaclava wearing officer with “not one but two” pistols and body armoured up to the eyeballs. Mr Littlejohn wanted the Commissioner’s head on a plate over this. He claimed that this officer looked like something out of the Spetsnaz and wanted it made quite clear that this simply isn’t how we do things in Britain. As I recall the article went on to criticise the entire operation because it was apparently obvious that the individual with the “device” was just some harmless loon. The inconvenience this caused in the name of “public safety” was unnecessary and complete overkill. What was required was for a beat copper to walk in and tell the man not to be so stupid. Wrap it up in thirty seconds and crack on.

His latest column on the inconvenience to motorists following the tragic incident on the motorway on Christmas Day takes him to a new level of low.

It starts of sympathetically enough with a few paragraphs of seemingly genuine sadness but then the real crux of the article kicks in. Tragic as it all was it was completely selfish of the police to close the motorway for hours on end for “no apparent reason” thereby stranding thousands of motorists and interrupting their Christmas plans.

Mr Littlejohn states that the carriageway was clear and so a couple of lanes should have been opened to let people pass and get on with their day. It “all points to a tragic accident” he says. There was only one vehicle involved so why the need for all the hassle.

The police just don’t think about law abiding innocent motorists.The picture in the column shows the covered vehicle being lifted onto a flat bed truck with half a dozen “blokes in hi-Vis jackets” stood around chatting. The implication being that everyone was pretty much hanging around, doing nothing and wasting everyone’s time.

The arrogance and ignorance it must take to write something like this simply staggers me. Firstly – the first hour at least of this incident would most likely have involved the frantic efforts to save life. Air Ambulances were required and they landed nearby. Having had personal experience of a fatal road collision involving children I know that everyone tries just that little bit harder. Even when it seems obvious that all hope is gone.Whilst this is happening – frankly – everything else in the world can wait. It’s not just a case of screening off lane one and letting everyone pass by. With the Air Ambulance present a lifesaving roadside operation could be taking place. Anything could be happening.

When it becomes obvious that first aid simply isn’t going to work you have to somehow put that behind you and get on with investigating what happened. It is quite likely that the first few cars in the now huge queue will have witnesses on board. They will quite possibly be traumatised as well as having important information to share. You don’t just wave people on and hope they think to call in later.You see it’s not “just one vehicle involved” – the witnesses and other motorists have just watched this horror story unfold in front of their eyes and most will not have the desensitisation that the emergency service people have. And emergency service people aren’t as tough as you think either.

The half dozen blokes stood around doing nothing may well have been giving CPR to a dying child an hour ago. They may have witnessed things close up and personal that nothing can prepare you for. So it’s not “just one vehicle involved” is it Mr Littlejohn? Emergency service personnel don’t just pack up and go home for tea and medals.

In the incident I dealt with six months ago I went home and cried and I am about as cynical as they come. And even if it was “just one vehicle involved” we still need to find out how and why this happened. Was another driver driving dangerously? Did they perform a manoeuvre so dangerous it was criminal? Is someone else responsible? Have the mechanics of the car been tampered with? Is it murder? Is it suicide?

You see – its not as simple as saying that “everything points to it being a tragic accident” within an hour of getting there. Science will need to be brought into it. Skid marks analysed, evidence sought.

When the Air France Concorde crashed in Paris the cause was tracked down to a tiny piece of metal which had been dropped by the previous take off. The Concorde wheel hit it – sent it directly into the fuel tank – it ruptured and the rest is tragic history. No-one said “well it was just one plane and it looks like a tragic accident”.The crash site was forensically examined – as was the runway. The cause was traced to a this one, tiny piece of metal because of painstaking investigation. As a result of this another airline was put up in court for negligence. No-one just rubbed their hands and said “well these things happen.”

Do the victims and family of a fatal road accident deserve any less? Of course they don’t. You simply cannot put a cost on even a single human life as Mr Littlejohn wants to do by dismissing these events as simply inconvenient to others.

Yes – the police have a responsibility to try and divert the massive queue and ensure the welfare of the other drivers who are delayed but turning people on a motorway is no easy task. You also have to factor in the unfortunate human trait of rubbernecking which either causes further delays or, as I have personally witnessed, more collisions.

About a month ago I was caught up in a three hour delay on the M5. All I knew was what I could grab off the Highways Agency app which was telling me it was a collision involving multiple vehicles. I moved about two miles in those three hours and whilst it was “inconvenient” and it made me very late I had enough faith in the police dealing with it to accept it for what it was and know they had a more important job to do than whatever it was I was trying to do.

Mr Littlejohn’s article is a poor-taste cheap shot at the police which, despite its apparent sympathy at the start, simply criticises the police for the sake of it. It is a horrible article. Mr Littlejohn’s armchair expertise qualifies him perfectly to attempt for direct entry into the police at Superintendent rank. Perhaps he would like to command such an incident with the benefit of his infinite wisdom. I would be very interested to see if he adopts the same attitude to a suspicious package in a shopping centre or unexploded ordnance in a garden of a row of terraced houses. His kind of leadership has no place in the police service as it inspires carelessness and callousness. He is entitled to his opinion but he can keep it. Because its wrong – utterly wrong. Given that three people, two of them children, lost their lives in tragic circumstances on the way to a wedding (again – it’s not just “one vehicle involved” is it?) and that a family is now devastated by the loss of their youngest generation it should make you realise that – frankly – if the worst that happened to you on Christmas Day was that you were late for your turkey – you got off pretty lightly.

Further debunking of Mr Littlejohn’s article can be found here. This link is to a blog by Michael Rawlings – a press photographer at the scene. Well worth a read.

I would also commend the blog by Councillor Jon Harvey who widens the debate into how we address problems with perceptions of the police

To be fair it has nothing to do with her but she does have a song with the same title. However, the matter I’m going to discuss does involve a ‘skater boy’.

There are a whole load of videos out there on the internet that show some pretty amazing, pretty hairy, pretty scary antics by skateboarders on roads.

These guys running downhill at amazing speeds and overtaking cyclists.

then this guy (note clothing and lack of protective gear) who nearly ends up under a coach.

The dangers are fairly obvious. Some of the videos online may be on closed roads. I don’t know. However, either way, this is the sort of behaviour that some boarders are engaging in and putting themselves and other road users at risk.

So then we have the Huddersfield style…. as reported by the Huddersfield Examiner.

Whilst the top two examples are worth watching both for skill and stupidity, it is the latter I want you to concentrate on. It is, in many ways, totally laughable in comparison but the ingredients are the same. Skaters using boards on the road in a dangerous manner.

But is there something else we should be looking at? Is there something else from this Huddersfield video that we should be worried about? Is there something, perhaps, about this video that shows how little we truly understand about the dangers of mobile phone use behind the wheel? Is there something about this video that says in order to show dangerous behaviour by one user of the road we ignore another?

Take another look. This video footage is NOT a dashcam. It moves, it twists towards the skaters as they turn away from the car.

The phone is handheld and is positioned to the offside of the car. At the end of video the view of the dashboard suggests this is the driver and not somebody in the backseat with their phone over the drivers shoulder. It is too far forward. I could be wrong… and I cannot prove it but everything in this video points to it being the driver who is recording this footage on a hand held mobile phone.

Whilst trying to point out the dangers of what the skateboarders are doing the driver engages in dangerous behaviour! Worse, the newspaper have picked this up and used it in a story to show how dangerous the boarders are and pay no regard to the actions of the driver.

This is part of the problem we have with mobile phone use by drivers. There is no recognition of how dangerous this behaviour is. In many ways this footage should not have been used. The use of footage by news and media outlets that is clearly, or indicative, of a mobile phone offence by a driver that cannot be negated simply perpetuates the problem and adds to the misplaced concept by far too many that this is acceptable practice. The more we show it the more likely people are to engage in the same behaviour.

Is the driver concentrating on the roads? Is the driver concentrating on the oncoming traffic? Is the driver, as they turn left at the give way, paying more attention to keeping the boarders in shot than what may be approaching from their right? Another kid on a skateboard, a cyclist, a motorcyclist, a car…?

I’m not aware that anything happened. The newspaper certainly doesn’t report as such… so this driver got away with using a phone and nothing happened. That builds confidence. This driver will do it again… and again and again… until it goes wrong… and that could easily be the death of someone.

Using a phone whilst driving for any purpose is dangerous. It’s that simple. Put it down and get on with driving.

pic via Wikipedia

The circumstances around this case are tragic and sadly all too familiar. Here are some familiar phrases from the case that are identical to the M1 fatal that killed 8 people.

There was no slowing down or braking There was no swerving or course deviation

Russell simply drove straight into the pedestrian. He died in hospital a few days later.

Russell had been constantly texting for 20 minutes prior to the collision. The judge stated that his dangerous driving started the minute his journey began. He was texting back and forth constantly and that there was ample opportunity to see the victim crossing the road. He didn’t. Some may say he was suffering from inattentional blindness. Others may more accurately say that he was quite simply a distracted driver.

The judge concluded with “Had you been paying proper attention you would have seen him and been able to react”.

He has been sentenced to 7 years in prison.

An aggravating factor in this case is that Russell, a lorry driver (therefore supposedly a “professional” driver) has previously been sacked for using a mobile phone to record an accident scene whilst driving.

Russell clearly had no concept of the dangers of his behaviour or simply ignored them. Whichever it was his actions led to the death of a pedestrian.

This case should serve as a warning to us all. Put your phone down whilst in the car and driving. Don’t use it for anything. Even handsfree. If you think you’re ok and a safe driver then think again. It just means you’ve run a knife edge and, so far, miraculously managed to get away with it.

News items links;

Conviction

Sentencing

image by Paul Beard via Coventry Telegraph

There is so much evidence out there that demonstrates how use of a mobile phone whilst driving is incredibly dangerous and yet people still do it. Every single day.

The reactions of a driver using a phone whilst driving (even handsfree) are increased by more than a driver at the drink drive limit. Think about that. Most people these days would not even consider drinking and driving (I adopted the #NoneForTheRoad concept years ago and I implore you to do the same. Never mind a half or just one… try nothing.) yet they will gladly pick up a phone and repeatedly expose themselves and other road users to increased risks.

Fortunately this driver did not involve anyone else but it is quite clear that he had absolutely no control over his vehicle the minute it hit the first verge. Control he gave up to send texts… saying what?

My team are going to beat yours?

I’ll be home by 6?

I love you and I’m sorry for last night?

Whatever the content of the texts I can guarantee pound to a penny there were not as important as his life.

One final point. We regularly see truck drivers and others who drive as the major part of their occupation as professional drivers. I wholly disagree with this. I once drove a van for a living. I was therefore a professional driver. Yet I’d had no additional training. No extra qualifications. Nothing. Truck drivers may have a difficult test. They may have regular medicals. They may have many 100’s of thousands of miles under them. However. Any driver, who believes they are a professional driver relinquishes that title the minute they go anywhere near a phone whilst driving.

Lorry driver killed in crash was distracted by text messages

pic via BBC link above

So what is nitrous oxide? It’s a chemical compound, an oxide of nitrogen and commonly known as laughing gas. It has three main legitimate uses;

• To numb pain during medical procedures
• In engines to increase power output
• In whipped cream canisters and some food packaging options to prevent food going off

So what has all this go to do with road safety? Nitrous oxide has become popular with some people as it gives the user a high. They feel euphoric and relaxed and often gives people the giggles.. hence it often being referred to as laughing gas. If inhaled it impairs a person’s ability to function normally and has huge implications if that person goes on to drive.

The article below illustrates how bad this can be. The driver was using nitrous oxide whilst driving and inhaling it from balloons using a cracking device that was also found in his van. He was driving at excess speeds and police also found evidence of mobile phone use whilst driving. Can there be a worse combination than an impaired driver who is speeding and using a phone? He was involved in a collision with another car and killed both the occupants. He has been jailed for 9 years for death by dangerous driving.

Full article in the Independent

Image: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

This, of course, is entirely healthy and part of the natural cycle of learning and development. A constant review process.

Sadly, if I ever had any serious doubts about the campaign, it never takes long for an incident to occur that reinforces why it must continue. Why it must keep pushing for change. Why it must continue the pressure to get more organisations and individuals to show their support.

The latest tragic news from Romania is not the same but shares similarities to the multiple fatal on the M1 at Newport Parnell.

A driver of a minibus, whilst livestreaming to Facebook has crashed and killed 9 people.

This behaviour is not going away. It is not getting better. It’s getting worse.

pic via Romania-Insider

8 people lost their lives.

An account of some of the basic facts of the case are outlined in this article.

The two drivers involved were sentenced at Aylesbury Crown Court yesterday (23.3.18).

Masierak was found guilty on 8 counts of causing death by dangerous driving. He was also found guilty of 4 counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

Sentence; 14yrs in jail. Banned from driving for 17 years. Faces deportation on completion of sentence.

Wagstaff was found guilty of 8 counts of causing death by careless driving and 4 counts of causing serious injury by careless driving.

Sentence; 40 months in jail. Banned from driving for 3 years.

More info on the case here from the BBC.

There are really no words for such awful circumstances. Masierak has been given the maximum sentence for the s1 offence of 14 years. There will be many that will feel that a life sentence was the only logical outcome. However, the courts are limited to the powers available to them and in this case, which is rare, he got the absolute maximum. The UK government have committed to introduce life sentences for this offence.

The bigger and wider issue in this case is that of Wagstaff. His case throws into the arena a fact that has been well known and evidenced for some time. Hands free phone calls are not safe, cause distraction and can increase reaction times more than a driver at the drink drive limit. He had 11 seconds to react to the situation. He did nothing. No loss of speed. No deviation of path. He just ploughed into stationary traffic much like Kroker did. His attention was totally in another place and not focussed on his driving. Something that his legal team chose to call ‘inattentional blindness’. He didn’t react because he wasn’t paying attention. Not even a little bit.

The truck itself was on cruise control and maintaining 56mph. So he had no immediate involvement in the speed control of the truck. All he had to do was steer and maintain observations. He failed.

He was engaged in a hands free call that had been ongoing for some considerable time. Not an offence in itself but this case does highlight something I’ve argued for a long time. It’s distracted driving and wholly and completely dangerous.

But cars are getting increasingly safer? Cruise control maintains speed. Lane control systems can now maintain position. Adaptive cruise control systems manage the speed up and down depending on the conditions. Autonomous emergency braking. All such features are very clever but not infallible. They are sold to us on the basis that it makes driving safer. The theory being that the computer never tires, the computer is never drunk, the computer is never distracted. The next logical assumption, it would seem, is that the more in car technology that takes over matters that the driver should be doing, means they can concentrate even more on safety matters. An all round win for road safety? Sadly I’m convinced it means the total opposite. With increased autonomous functionality a driver is more inclined to sit back and pay even less attention to the road.

In the recent fatal case in the USA involving a self driving Uber vehicle, we can see from the video , that whilst the ‘minder’ ( the driver to you and I ) was supposed to be watching the road and actions the car was taking, they were doing nothing of the sort. The driver was granted more time to be, if you like, ‘uber attentive’, by having no driving responsibilities at all, but was in fact totally distracted and relying on that automation to keep them safe. That automation failed and so did the driver. The tragic outcome cost someone their life.

Maybe, before we run headlong into the exciting world of autonomous vehicles we should hit the pause button and really look at how effective they are and what reaction that autonomy has on the driver behind the wheel.

I remain utterly convinced that the use of mobile phones by drivers of vehicles for any purpose needs to be banned. I further believe that the legislation, notwithstanding the penalty increases last year, is out of step with the danger it causes.

A drink driver is arrested, taken to custody, charged, sent to court and on conviction faces a mandatory 12m ban, a fine and court costs. The mobile phone user, when the evidence shows it to be just as, if not more dangerous, faces a £200 fine and 6 points. This is a change that needs to be made and in my view the mobile phone legislation needs to mirror the drink drive penalty at the very least.

Such a change will take time and a lot of campaigning by people far more important than I. In the meantime drivers themselves can make a commitment to road safety and just stop using phones in their cars. Hand held or hands free. Businesses who have a mobile workforce need to embed ‘non-use’ policies to ensure their drivers operate safely on the road.

Had such a policy been in place for Wagstaff he may have seen the minibus. He may have been able to take evasive action. He may have been able to significantly reduce his speed. He may not have killed anyone at all.