Mobile menace

I’m PLEASED to see that Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, has ordered a police clampdown on drivers using mobile phones, and that he’s threatened tougher action – six points instead of three – if drivers continue to defy the law (your report, 10 
September).

It’s an offence that bothers me when I’m driving, but terrifies me when I’m cycling. Getting too close to cyclists is clearly on the increase. Why?

A polystyrene helmet offers next to no protection against “mobile menaces”, especially those in huge vehicles. How many deaths are needed before we get tougher action?

The Department for Transport (McLoughlin’s department) warns us that you’re four times more likely to crash if you use a mobile phone while driving; reaction times for drivers using a phone are around 50 per cent slower than normal driving; even careful drivers can be 
distracted by a call or text, and a split-second lapse in concentration could result in a crash.

With the reaction time of a driver at the drink drive limit only slowed by 15 per cent 
(figure from Transport Research Laboratory) the mobile phone offence is clearly equal to, if not worse than, being twice the drink-drive limit.

Why then not the same automatic driving ban for mobile menaces? Given the recent 100 vehicle pile-up on Sheppey Bridge – caused by slow reaction time for sure, and a “miracle no one was killed” – it’s an absolute must, is it not?

David Cameron once said: “Drink drivers are people who are beyond the pale.”

Accordingly, “mobile menaces” must be one and the same. Why keep relying on miracles?

Alan Ramsay

Radcliffe Moor Road

Radcliffe