If there was no hands free kit in the car, and they can establish that the person was making a call while driving, then it’s useful for them to be able to refer to phone records.

If its true that the emergency services are exempt from the law of driving while on the phone, what driving course did they go on to make them safe drivers while on the phone. Also has this been passed by the RSA and by the HSA Or are these drivers equipped with a third arm ?

The reason gardai and emergency services were exempt from the law defines the device as a hand held communication device. The above use hand held radios so needed to be exempt.

better that than making the call while driving.

While I agree they should lead by example, for operational reasons the emergency services are exempt from the law on using a mobile phone while driving.

So Emergency services are above the law ? Whats stopping the 2nd Guard or person in the ambulance from taking the call ? What would happen if the ambulance crashed on the way to a call out while on the phone…

I know of Gardai that have got caught speeding & their friends behind got caught to, they went back to the speed van showed the badge and got the tickets for them & their friend erased from the machine. Thats leading by example !

They’re not entirely exempt, only in very specific situations.

No Martin they are not above the law. Just like they are not above the law when they go through a red light to get to an emergency. The majority of the road traffic acts do not apply to emergency services in the course of their duty.

@Martin, you know this for a fact? The actual garda who did this told you himself he did it? or was it just hearsay?

Im not going to get into how i know on here but it is fact

Just to point out Martin that if your caught by a speed van you can’t erase it from the van. The driver has no facility to do that. It’s sent to Dublin and its there the tickets are issued.

The only being on the statute books however is driving while holding a mobile phone

I wasn’t aware that makeup containers and cigarette packets came with detailed records that could be queried by gardai…

I was at the traffic lights at Christchurch in Dublin recently and saw a lady driver putting on makeup, doing a crossword, drinking coffee and talking on her mobile. Yes, women CAN multi task!

I think they might do a little bit more investigation than that, no garda is going to go “oh they got a call, thats them at fault”. They would also look to see if there were bluetooth headsets, handsfree kits, etc in the car.

Research has shown that using Bluetooth does not reduce the probability of having an accident. People in conversation for longer than 9 minutes on Bluetooth have the same risk in being involved in a collision as someone holding the handset. They showed that the person became less aware of their surroundings and environment causing them to get distracted by the phone conversation. Ever see a person in conversation using their hands as a way of expressing their words? Same principle applied to research,

The question isn’t “should mobile phone records be considered incontrovertible proof of guilt regardless of circumstances” it’s “should the gardai be able to check them as one piece of evidence among many others”

Marian, I put I don’t know because while I think it’s a good idea in theory, I am not sure how it would work in reality. You would need the exact time of a crash to compare it with a sent text or call time.

It’s standardised research methodology that such an option be included. I could rant on about internal validity and reliability and various other measures of reseach quality and trustworthiness, but I won’t.

Simply put “the world is not simply black and white”.

Some people like to see the results of the poll without making a yes/no decision and the only way to view the results is to vote. I think it’s better to not view the results before voting so the leading view does not sway a persons decision.

I agree with Gary. It would be virtually impossible to determine the exact second of an impact to see if it falls in between the start to end of a phone call. Even if it was caught on cctv, the cctv clock would have to sync exactly to the phones time. A few seconds out and there would be no case.

Fair comments – the exact timings etc would need to be established – that’s a given.
As to black and white – of course there is no such thing Patrick but with only 3 options there is a statistical probability that many people will opt for the ‘don’t know’ button just because they don’t agree with the ‘yes’, ‘no’ extremes. My suggestion is that maybe ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘sometimes’ and ‘in special circumstances’ might have been alternative options to the potentially vague ‘don’t know’

Marian – ‘I don’t know’ is a valid answer to many of the polls that the Journal ask. Calling it a ‘non-view’ is idiotic.

A high level of don’t knows in the responses indicates that the question being asked is not clear cut.

I think the gardai should have access to phone records. for arguments sake we should assume that data could be taken from the phone confirming if a wireless device was used. As for determining the exact second of the crash, I think that is a null argument. If it can be shown that the driver was making calls or texting while driving throughout their journey it could be used as a sort of “character reference”

Valid point Shanners. But Say for instance you were pulled in to the side of the road on a call, finished that call then pulled away and slammed into a car 10 seconds later. Under this proposal you’d be convicted. You talk about a character reference, but you where in fact abiding by the law. Its legally very fragile and no judge would convict on it.

@ Patrick your right there is black and white & 50 shades of of grey

Because sometimes questions can’t, or shouldn’t, be answered with a “yes” or a “no”

Of course they should have the power.

Supplying car chargers to each Garda is something that should have been done long ago

well said Gary ….

@Joe, that is certainly a valid point and a grey area. If a driver can account for his journey, time he left, where he stoppped to talk on the phone etc, it should be possible to validate *most cases based on the timeframes involved. Like anything else, if there is reasonable doubt then it should not count.

A lot of comments talk of drivers stopping on the hard shoulders of motorways. Simple and harsh solution – not a valid excuse. Look at including this as using a phone while driving. This would force drivers to leave the motorway to find a safer spot to speak on the phone.

i find the results of the pole incredible that over half drivers are against this. If you don’t use your phone while driving you have nothing to worry about, if anything it might help you avoid liability!

Joe, If you were off your phone at the time of the accident then the person you were talking to would be able to confirm this. If you ended with “…. bye” you’re good, if you ended with “…. oh sh**ttttttttt”, you’re not so good..

@ Shanners..true. :). I think the probably the best solution is 8 points for using the phone while driving to stamp it out. And avoid the “oh shit” moment.

What if I crash while using the hands free kit built into my car? There are too many grey areas to open this particular can of worms.

Rob, there’s no law against using your hands free kit. Wouldn’t be held against you. HUGHIE, a few comments down, has a prime example of how the information should be used.

Im not sure I agree with you in that one Marion! :)

Well said Patrick. Any chance you can write to the Examiner about their awful polls? Ever noticed that they put a reason with the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ options? The reason they propose usually has nothing to do with you answering one way or the other

I have a blue tooth that lets me take calls when driving and Siri lets me dictate texts (all be it dodgy texts) without using my hands so I can’t see it it working out but I voted yes because the Gardai should have the powers they need to investigate all circumstances leading up to a crash. If u can’t decide yes or no then take the time to consider it further. If u still can’t decide then I don’t want to hear your opinion. On November 10th u will be presented with Yes or No options. There will be no’Maybe’ or ‘Not Sure’ boxes. At the end of the day this pole won’t be used to enact legislation.

A driver could be on Facebook or the Journal for that matter.

The rounabouts I drive on going to and coming from work are in excellent condition, the only reason I see for idiots driving out in front of me is the phone glued to their ear.

I’m happy for you. Your roundabouts are not representative of the overall state of the roads in Ireland though. You blame the phone for poor driving when it’s likely the driver has poor judgement and doesn’t pay attention anyway. What does it matter if they were on the phone or not at the time? It’s not like they can use it as a defence to bad driving nor is it evidence of someone being in the wrong.

In this country a person can drive a car with no licence or insurance or seatbelt while on the phone but if they are rear ended the other driver is in the wrong. That’s the reality of our system here.

I think that the problem is not poor judgemnet, its coming into a junction while holding a mobile phone in one hand, trying to brake, change gear and steer with the other hand while concentrating on the conversation. but hey, lets blame the state of the roads.

Again, this would all come out in statements made at the scene, everyone on here seems to think an investigation into an accident would start and end at the phone being used for a call.

They log their calls on computer via phone, check cars on the computer via phone, etc

No handsfree kit in the car, no mount for the phone on the dashboard, no bluetooth headset to be seen. Pretty conclusive.

All phones have a speaker mode and the offence is to hold a mobile while driving. So evidence of a call is not evidence of an offence.

Also, text messages can’t be sent using hands free kits.

Never heard of Siri Peter?

I’ve been able to send a text without touching the phone once since early 2010.

If a garda is investigating a crime scene it doesn’t cost extra resources for them to spend two minutes calling a phone company.

Can’t just ring up the phone company. You have to write through the channels to get permission to look for the records. Takes a few months( for less serious cases) at moment.

were they using their password protected computers while driving?

@Gagsy. You’re on fire this morning! Fair play

What about Donabate beach? They should clean this up before doing anything else.

Makes sense to me, I’ve seen plenty of gardai driving while on their mobiles too. Who would check their records?

Why just comment ‘yes’??
That’s why the vote is for…this section here is for comments. Hopefully better comments than mine!

Thanks Kerry – I was about to ask the Journal to let us know how you voted.

Yeah, the feckers, what are they thinking trying to see if someone was breaking the law when they caused a sewrious accident. This sort of thing should not be allowed, why should somebodys complete stupidity be investigated if it caused serious injury or even death to somebody who was driving along minding their own business and doing nothing wrong. Bloody qunagos.

When I hear the words “Road Safety Authority” I have to laugh. This is the joke organisation which has made it almost impossible to overtake traffic on the N4 between Kilcock and Kinnegad by placing double white lines in the centre of the road even in places where it is perfectly safe to oveertake. The reason? To force people on to the TOLLED M4. The last time I looked the toll was €2.70 for a car, and the time gained was only about 9 minutes. Tens of thousands of motorists are refusing to pay this extortion every day including large numbers of big trucks. One slow driver can delay up to 30 vehicles for many miles, leading many frustrated drivers to overtake in unsafe places. The RSA is a quango whose main purpose is revenue collection on behalf of the Troika/EMF led government and they couldn’t give a damn about road safety.

I agree with that principle, a lot of people aren’t picking up on the privacy issues. same with smoking laws in cars, I dont smoke, but i still think to ban it in cars is insane, just because as soon as they’ve banned that, next it will be food then talking to a passenger theyl want to ban. you have to draw a line somewhere.

Not that difficult. Studies show that the distraction is a factor for a few minutes after the event so the earlier arguments of knowing the exact second are rubbish. Having said that, other people in the car must be a bigger distraction. There’s only so often you can make up the answer to “daddy, what’s that over there?”

Why? They are doing it already for serious accidents and quiet successfully.

@gerry mcguiness Gerry I have read your comments and you make a lot of sense in what you say,however I just bought a new smartphone it’s a Sony “go” now I press the mic icon and tell it to call one of my contacts it brings up the name and I then press ok, I then start to drive with both hands on steering wheel and I can talk away no Bluetooth or phone cradle so where does a Garda go with that ? Btw I never drive and hold a phone at the same time and neither should anyone else including the emergency services technology has taken care of that.

@ Grainne, I agree, but the debate is on it as a possible way to furthur look at causes for an accident, not as the primary piece of evidence. Types of phone, other equipment for the phone in the car etc, etc would come into play. Its use as part of a full investigation would be great, and if a witness gives evidence that they saw them on the phone it is a method of backing up that assertion by being able to access the phone records. As another way of putting together the puzzle it should happen. All the people screaming about data protrction, what the hell could be so important on your phone that the gardai couldn’t see it, unless you’re breaking the law.