Mobile speed cameras to suprise chatty motorists with penalties

Nowadays, we're lucky to be able to so much as breathe air while driving without getting penalized. As of late, motorists in South Yorkshire have quite the incentive to keep their phone conversations under wraps while in transit. Mobile speed cameras, traditionally used to catch speeders, will be used by police to catch unsuspecting chit-chatters in the act, who would later receive an unexpected notice showing 3 points on their license and a demand for £60, which was recently, and perhaps not-so-coincidentally, increased from £30. "If officers using mobile cameras see someone using a hand-held phone, whether with their own eyes or through the lens of their camera, then they are fair game." There's been no word on plans for similar implementation within the automated camera system, but "that is not to say that we can't change the policy," states Meredydd Hughes, the head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Constables. Drivers may soon feel compelled to throw down some cash for a headset, although there's even been speculation on the perils of hands-free yapping -- looks like a good tint-job's the last resort... and how about some spinners while you're at it?

[Via Textually]

[korum @ Feb 28th 2007 2:39AM]

Scottish drivers?? are they just targetting Scottish motorists in an english county??
come on engadget know your geography.

[Fishd @ Feb 28th 2007 3:04AM]

Sorry to say, heavily tinted front windows are also illegal in the UK.

"Vehicle & Operator Services Agency (VOSA) LEGAL STATEMENT

Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 as amended specify the minimum levels of light that must pass through the windscreen and front side windows.
The Limits are:

* Motor vehicles first used on or after 1 April 1985:
* The light transmitted through the windscreen must be at least 75%.
* The front side windows must allow at least 70% of light to be transmitted through them.

If the glass is tinted to a point whereby it lets through less light, the vehicle does not meet legal requirements."

Any vehicle not meeting these regulations can be stopped by police. At this point they can either tell you to appear at a police station within 14 days to show you've had the tints removed... or AT THEIR DISCRETION they can impound your car!

[paddy @ Feb 28th 2007 3:30AM]

I once encountered a lady reversing her car up a hill on a one-way street, in the wrong direction, while talking on her mobile. She then parked it in the middle of the street, got out and went into a shop.

What should the fine be for this, I wonder. A frontal lobotomy..?

[me @ Feb 28th 2007 3:34AM]

surprise?

[Al @ Feb 28th 2007 4:25AM]

to follow up on korums comment, south yorkshire is in england, not scotland. the only mention of "scot" in the original article http://news.intranetics.co.uk/articles/3312.html is the scotsman newspaper... in other news, the articles been skewed through its various restates: the original states that while the primary purpose is for catching speeders, if a speeding motorist happens to be on the mobile phone at the same time that penalty will be applied as well. comon engad

[graham @ Feb 28th 2007 4:46AM]

Scottish?? Yorkshire is in England!

I think this is a good thing, it removes temptation and stops those that are currently taking the pi** out of the laws.

[Tim @ Feb 28th 2007 4:57AM]

I just saw the headline of this article at the bottom of my window and I made a bet with myself that this would have to be here in the UK...
You can bet your bottom pound on the government being on top to extract every last penny you have from you at every opportunity...
Moneygrabbing b***tards..., always the same...

[MPG @ Mar 3rd 2007 3:30PM]

"I just saw the headline of this article at the bottom of my window and I made a bet with myself that this would have to be here in the UK...
You can bet your bottom pound on the government being on top to extract every last penny you have from you at every opportunity...
Moneygrabbing b***tards..., always the same..."

So you'd prefer for them to just throw people into jail who talk on their mobile phone while driving? You realize that'd cost you, the tax payer, money? Or what other punishment would you suggest for those idiots who knowingly endanger other people's lives?

[MacroEQ @ Feb 28th 2007 5:21AM]

LOL @ Engadget getting British geography wrong again...

It's becoming quite amusing now... :D

[Nick @ Feb 28th 2007 7:02AM]

It's funny, because most *Americans* know bugger-all about their biggest Ally's Kingdom.
They obviously don't teach much other than American Georgraphy in schools. Pointless.
It's like us saying "Oh yeah, did you hear about that American Canadian the other day..."

[Mark @ Feb 28th 2007 6:14AM]

That picture illustrates one of the things I find most amazing (and dangerous) about phones in cars: some people need two hands to talk on the phone. Countless times I've seen people holding a phone to their ear with one hand while they repeatedly take their other hand off the steering wheel to gesticulate as they talk. They probably aren't even aware that they are doing it and couldn't stop themselves if they tried. I give them a wide berth.

[andy @ Feb 28th 2007 9:20AM]

@nick

American schools don't teach American geography anymore either. That's been determined racist and sexist along with any other historical facts. Don't you know anything about America?

[Wingi @ Feb 28th 2007 7:14AM]

Whoot come on Barnsley

[regomodo @ Feb 28th 2007 7:15AM]

Engadget, Yorkshire is an English County and despite what many US citizins think, London is not a country. Scotland is part of the UK but it's own country.

[No @ Feb 28th 2007 7:28AM]

Kind of funny how you pretty much insult the intelligence level of the US by explaining that London is not a country, but before you are even done with your sentence spell citizen with an "i"("citizin"). Just wanted to point that out.

[Michael @ Feb 28th 2007 10:59AM]

I hope they start doing this in America. I believe that in certain states, driving with any kind of distraction is either illegal or is about to become so. (IE no eating, talking, applying makeup...any of these would be ticketable offenses.)

Thankfully nobody in here has made the flawed argument that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, in their vehicles. That argument is supposedly supported by our Constitutional laws, but I believe that one's freedom to do what one pleases in one's vehicle is limited by the fact that this "one" is driving all over the road and apparently trying to kill everyone else with reckless driving.

@nick: try Firefox 2.0.0.2 : it includes a built in spell check :-)

[regomodo @ Feb 28th 2007 11:49AM]

haha, yeah. I'm using wrong terminologies and getting my spelling wrong. Must have written that before i drank my coffee.

In all fairness, i'm glad this is happening. Got stuck behind a stupid van driver today who was acting all weirdly i.e sudden turns off the road indicating at the last moment, wandering about and driving slowly. When he eventually got out my way, what was he doing? Yep, talking on his mobile

[Wingi @ Feb 28th 2007 7:37AM]

btw Yorkshire is not a county its a region consisting of north, south, west and east riding which are counties

[B @ Feb 28th 2007 8:55AM]

MPG: "So you'd prefer for them to just throw people into jail who talk on their mobile phone while driving?"
MPG you're a fool. The point is, they would rather fine you and make money. Its an unenforceable law. If you're on the highway and no cop cars and cams in sight, there is nothing to stop you.
Besides, the stats are dodgy - many accidents occur with mobile phone users, but equally many accidents probably occur while adjusting your stereo or checking some girl in your rear-view. Those don't get converted into stats. Its an arbitrary line to say mobile phone use should be banned. You could also draw a more unreasonable line and ban all cars. The law sometimes says things are illegal for administrative purposes. You should still use your brain and question these things. You probably believe everything governments spoon-feed you and you lap it up.

[Andir3.0 @ Feb 28th 2007 9:09AM]

This is awesome actually. Stop penalizing those that pay attention to the road and maybe drive a bit faster than everyone else and we have a winner!

[Muu @ Feb 28th 2007 9:20AM]

B:

So law enforcement should give up enforcing the speed limit because no one follows them when a cop isn't in sight?

I can assure you that there will be more morons going 80 on a 55 zone, and people trying to see how far they can push their corollas on the freeways if there were no speed laws. If they give it enough of a negative incentive, people WILL learn to avoid unnecessary calls.

You may have more faith in drivers than I do, but I've been hit by cars enough during my youth, and been in enough small collisions to know that there are more dregs behind the wheels than I'd wish there were.

[B @ Feb 28th 2007 11:42AM]

Muu: "I can assure you that there will be more morons going 80 on a 55 zone, and people trying to see how far they can push their corollas on the freeways if there were no speed laws."

You're completely right, and speed limits are essential in places. The legislation constantly changes to keep up with technology, so cars can not do unlimited speeds on highways any more. But whether using a mobile phone as opposed to doing all sorts of other things in the car is of a higher risk is not only questionable, but stands to reason that it cannot be true. We can't prove it though, cos the stats are easier to obtain for mobile phone usage, and then people forget to question these things after a while (after it becomes a crime), and we start believing it really is a "crime" in a more moral sense if you see what I mean :-( My wording is not great. Hope you understand. So when people say 'would you prefer to throw them in jail' they have already accepted that if its a law then it must be morally wrong... and in reality it is not much more morally wrong than driving whilst changing the volume or driving before your car is completely de-misted or eyeing that girl in the rearview as I mentioned, etc.

[GY @ Feb 28th 2007 12:31PM]

B,
I don't know about you, but I rarely spend an hour changing the volume or checking out a girl (ok, maybe a really hot girl). Phone conversations, on the other hand, are a long, sustained distraction.

Just because some elements are not enforcable and there are other distractions that could contribute to driving poorly doesn't mean we shouldn't try to tackle the problem. Many countries have laws requiring handsfree kits to talk while driving and while that doesn't address the whole problem, statistically, those laws have stuck and seem to be helping.

I remember a time when the 'unenforcable' argument was applied by opponents to seatbelt laws.

[warrenpeace™ @ Feb 28th 2007 12:59PM]

They should do this EVERYWHERE!

[Archietype @ Feb 28th 2007 1:20PM]

Reminds me of the stuff that used to be in the Innovations catalogue in the UK.

"Practical *and* stylish"

[airpolgas @ Feb 28th 2007 3:25PM]

I live in Los Angeles, and I wish they'd do this here.

[randf @ Feb 28th 2007 4:46PM]

scotland, england, whereever....i just wish they'd bring that law to the US. i am sick of dodging the idiots who are challenged enough just driving their 6000lb Ford Excretions, let alone using a phone in one hand and a hamburger, Starbucks Latte (lowfat of course), cigarette, slapping the kid in the backseat, or gesturing with the other.

contrary to popular belief, humans are not good multitaskers. people, get off the phone and just drive.

[Darvin @ Mar 12th 2007 5:29AM]

Scottish? South Yorkshire?

Heh. Silly endadget.

Yorkshire is in England.

[dosguy @ Mar 27th 2007 2:03AM]

In my state they have a law against talking on a handheld phone while driving. The problem is - they can only enforce it IF the driver is pulled over for some other infraction. In other words - first let them cause a wreck because they're yacking away, and THEN give 'em a ticket. This makes absolutely no sense. And then - in the extremely rare event they ARE ticketed for yacking, there's only a $20 fine and no points! What's the sense in having such a useless law? It should most definitely be a moving violation with big points and a hefty fine. Distracted driving is as bad as drunk driving.