From today's Times
Personally would like to see much longer licence suspensions and get rid of penalty points. Start with instant suspension of min 3 months.
Drivers who kill while using a mobile phone will face life sentences under penalties aimed at curbing deaths caused by dangerous or careless behaviour behind the wheel.Motorists who are speeding or under the influence of drink or drugs when there is a fatal accident could also be treated by the courts in the same way as those convicted of manslaughter, and be given life sentences.
Sam Gyimah, the justice minister, said the maximum sentence needed to rise to a life term from the current 14-year limit, which usually sees people released after just seven years, to ensure that “the punishment fits the crime”.
Road safety campaigners hailed the plans as a “vindication” of their work but said ministers should go further. The RAC has warned that there is an “epidemic” of drivers texting, calling and checking emails at the wheel.
Last year 122 people were convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, an offence that covers speeding, street racing and other reckless behaviour, as well as using a phone. Another 21 people were convicted of causing death by careless driving while under the influence.
Under the government proposals, those found guilty could be jailed for life. This compares with an average sentence for drivers who killed of just 45.6 months, or less than four years, in 2015.
Sentencing will remain a matter for judges but ministers want to see the average jail term increase under the plans, which will be published tomorrow.
Death by dangerous driving would carry a potential life sentence so that motorists would be released only with the permission of the parole board after serving a minimum tariff set by the judge.
The lesser offence of death by careless driving could also carry a life sentence if motorists were over the alcohol limit or had taken illegal drugs, under the proposals, which will be consulted on until February.
Ministers plan to create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, such as failing to check a wing mirror or becoming distracted by the car radio. Drivers who kill will also face longer bans from the road.
“Killer drivers ruin lives,” Gyimah said. “Their actions cause immeasurable pain to families, who must endure tragic, unnecessary losses. While impossible to compensate for the death of a loved one, we are determined to make sure the punishment fits the crime. My message is clear — if you drive dangerously and kill on our roads, you could face a life sentence.”
Gary Rae, campaigns director for the road safety charity Brake, said: “This is a vindication of our efforts, and those of victims’ families, calling for change through our Roads to Justice campaign. For too long, the justice system has treated them as second-class citizens.”
Brake, however, is still concerned that the charge of “careless” driving could remain. Rae said: “There is nothing careless about taking someone else’s life.”
The government plans come after a lorry driver, Keith Mees, was jailed for six years last week for smashing into a car and killing two men while breaking up with his girlfriend on his mobile.
Ministers have already increased penalties for using phones while driving. The punishment is being doubled from three points to six so that motorists caught twice will hit the 12-point threshold for a ban.
More detection and prosecution is needed - not stiffer penalties generally. It the fear of getting caught that changes peoples behaviour - not the penalties if they are caught
TJ +1
it doesn't matter what the penalties are once someone has been killed - you need to address the normal standard of driving. No-one thinks they'll kill.
Agreed, detection and a Police force with the capability to capture and prosecute offenders is the answer. I agree with the longer harsher sentences, still won't stop the 4 idiots I overtook on the dual carriageway that were busy staring into phones whilst driving though, nor the truck drivers who watch porn on thier iPads either.
One small step for mankind, one large step for a political soundbite.
TJ +1 more.
I think one other thing that should be introduced for mobile phone offences is that the offending phone or tablet should be pulverised at the road side after wiping all of the online backups. This might be a fate worse than jail for some of them. They'll be off Facebook for 20 minutes. It'll be the end of their world.
Are these sentences enforced unless it's a cyclist killed where the usual slap on the wrist and don't do it again are handed out?
Lip service, as TJ implies.
Anyone else think we're taking a step backwards with the widespread introduction of touch screens in cars?
I think it is also time to review how long licences are valid for - currently if I pass my test as a teenager, it is valid until I am 70. Over a 50 year period, the rules and conditions will change significantly (they have in the 25 years I have been driving). The introduction of mandatory retest every 10 years would help address the standards of driving in this country. That test should also include an element to test driving on a Motorway/dual carriageway.
More challenging, I would also make it a requirement of the testing process that people have to have ridden a bicycle in an urban location for a specified distance/time so that they start to understand what passing traffic feels like.
Absolutely.Anyone else think we're taking a step backwards with the widespread introduction of touch screens in cars?
Maybe they need a mandatory gaze-detector (or whatever they're really called) that can't be shut down without limimting speed to 30, fitted in all new cars.
Police find a car that's had it disabled or tampered with - crusher
Oh, and as regards retests, I'd have something like mandatory retest within 3 months of any collision (regardless of fault) and mandatory advanced test after your third ever collision
Interesting focus in Times and here. On the Sky the focus is on death by dangerous driving sentencing which could be increased to life (max currently 14 with avg at )
http://news.sky.com/story/possible-life-sentences-for-serious-driving-crimes-proposals-10682921
Police should have a big crackdown, we must see people on the phone every time we go out in the car. Have had someone drive right through a pedestrian crossing as they are on their phone and not paying attention. I do try and look at the driver directly now to try and check.
We need some radical action. How about compulsory car kits ? Manufacturers to fit them new or retro ones for older cars. Phones to have "car mode" where its voice calls hands free only. If phone found in "normal mode" after an accident default fine/points.
How about compulsory car kits ?
That'll just further legitimise dangerous behaviour, using a phone while driving is dangerous with or without a kit.
Tj + 1
Drivers could be immediately guillotined at the roadside, but it means nothing without enforcement...
It won't make a difference. A guy just this morning was on the motorway, phone pressed to his ear in a new Range Rover.
You can't tell me that RR supply new cars without bluetooth. People are just thick; they think they know best.
You need plod in cars snatching those who offend. If you can't catch an offence by camera, it isn't going to happen.
TJ + 1 AND...
We need to take away the belief that driving is some sort of "right". It issnt.
To be able to drive, people should need to prove, and continuously re-prove, their capability. We need to introduce re-testing on a regular basis, say every five years, and if you don't pass you don't drive until you do pass.
Rachel (whose most recent driving test was 3 years ago, btw)
Vinnyeh - completely agree about the touch screens in cars. They're a pain in th arse and instead of instinctively knowing where a physical button is you need to use your eyes. Had one in Golf I was driving recently - complete nightmare. Also if people think it's alright to play with the cars touchscreen the jump to playing with a phone is only a small one unfortunely.
I live on a junction of an A and B road. If sit on the bench by the junction, as I have been known to do from time to time with my kids, you can easily count the phone users as they drive through. They just don't care about it.
It would be easy pickings if I filmed them.... what do you think?
£10 to me, £25 to the police, for every collar...
^^^^ I have advocated this but by way of ordinary citizens equipped with Police authorised cameras to video offenders and submit evidence for fines etc on a commission basis. Let's mobilise the public!
I don't see why we can't have extra police/traffic officers funded entirely by enormous fines for such offences. Surely £500 or confiscation of the vehicle would fund it?
Forgive me if I call bullshit on this. The prisons are full, with very little in the way of extra capacity on the horizon and the government are talking about increasing sentences when there's already record numbers being released early.
They've clearly no intention of properly enforcing this and Judges will be under no pressure to significantly increase sentences. It's just lip service and further proof that no improvements are on the horizon in terms of policing and enforcement.
If phone found in "normal mode" after an accident default fine/points.
In my car it returns to "normal mode" whenever you turn the ignition off, like with most cars. I agree in principle though. I was once pulled over because the policeman thought I was using a phone when instead I was turning the radio on (something to do with seeing my face lit up by the dial as it was winter). He said that even turning the radio on could cause inattention and I should be careful in future. I had absolutely no issue with that.
Drivers who are driving poorly should be stopped. Admittedly it would mean chaos for a few months and a lot of letters to the editor/chief constable/MP but after that it'd settle down. In Luxembourg they introduced speed cameras this year and although most people I know seem to have been caught at least once in the first few months, since then the average speed outside motorways has diminished which was the goal. If only the police would stop cars on Saturday and Sunday mornings to catch drink drivers, driving here would be significantly safer than a year ago.
You can't tell me that RR supply new cars without bluetooth. People are just thick; they think they know best.
My boss drives a brand new merc and an older lexus. Both have hands free built in but he has no idea how it works so puts his phone on speaker if he needs to call or answer.
I don't think harsher sentences will achieve much, other than criminalise drivers and weight ow our over stressed prisons.
Surely it is enforcement and education first and then punishment if you are a deliberate or serial offender?
Bigger punishments are not the answer, but then neither is our prison system for such crimes IMO.
You can't tell me that RR supply new cars without bluetooth.
How many times does it have to be repeated? Hands free phones are [b]not safe[/b]. No one should be talking/texting/interacting with a phone while driving.
I agree with the previous posters. Stiffer sentencing for dangerous driving is just posturing, because it won't be enforced and prosecuted
Anyone else think we're taking a step backwards with the widespread introduction of touch screens in cars?
It's obviously foolish and yet in the latest revision to the driving test there were calls to test for young driver's ability to read and use such screens.
It kind of demonstrates the conflicting outlooks and goals of various organisations on these debates and eventual changes.
It's progress and they should increase the penalty for death by careless driving regardless if alcohol was involved or not. Though increase in penalty may increase the number of "failure to stop" incidents.
More traffic police.
We were terrified of them as scruffy youths on two strokes.
All experienced gentlemen of a certain age, mostly bikers themselves.
They dispensed wisdom and good judgement alongside the most appalling bollockings, usually in front of my parents.
I see young kids racing over the moors almost every night round here - hardly ever see a police car driving around.
Every third car has a headlight out, indicating is optional, phones compulsory.
More traffic police please.
I don't really give a toss abot what happens at the tip of the iceberg - at least not until the body of stupid inconsiderate behaviour is sorted; find a way of stopping people from failing to pay attention. In my opinion most of that now is phone/screen-based and you change behaviour by making it an expensive/inconvenient thing for people to do.I don't think harsher sentences will achieve much, other than criminalise drivers and weight ow our over stressed prisons.
Options, I dunno: Yeah, roadside and car-mounted police cameras, funded by fines. Take the phone, take the car, impose a much bigger (and meaningfully escalated if you're rich) fine, MANDATORY loss of licence at 12 points rather than allowing the option of sob-stories, stick a massive plastic cock on a roof-rack for every driver who gets caught, ...
Agree with TJ, getting tired of almost being runover daily now in London by people who think they live in Italy and:
A) Don't indicate
B) Run red lights
C) Speed in the city centre and seemingly get away with it
It's bloody London, the most watched city on the planet outside of NK - how is this still a huge issue?
I think people who commit offences like the phone use or driving without due care, should have to have it emblazoned on their car/vehicle for a mandatory period.
Threat of detection, as said, is the key.
Install lots of roadside cameras filming people as they drive past, so that the driver can be seen (Japan has this for their speed cameras). Make the film publicly available so that Joe and Joanne Bloggs can log in and watch the videos. If they spot one of the drivers using a phone, running a red light etc.. they flag the video, a copper looks at it and then issues a whopping fine and bans them from the roads for a realistic amount of financially painful time.
Their are lots of folk with lots of spare time who would simply love to be catching bad uns. Maybe incentivise the watching, £5 if you were the first to spot the offence?
It's often mentioned that the Police do not have enough resources, lets get the public helping them out.
Within 15 minutes of being out today, I was cut up on a roundabout by an incompetent driver and punished passed by the following drivers for remonstrating with the first one.
I was later waved at by fat bastard in range rover gesturing me to get off the road.
Then I was stuck in shopping lemming traffic poisoning me so much my throat is still sore now an hour after getting home. This is in one of the least densely populated areas of the UK.
Increased sentencing is to be welcomed but what we need is a culture change but with the brexit/trump/dm/kippers in the ascendancy that has never felt so unlikely.
Just in from a road ride and observed a police car completely ignoring the two drivers parked on zigzag lines at a pedestrian crossing (last time I checked this was still worth 3 points). If it is too cold for the police on patrol to stop and deal with what they apparently consider an insignificant issue, why will any driver treat road laws as anything other than a minor inconvenience
puddings - MemberJust in from a road ride and observed a police car completely ignoring the two drivers parked on zigzag lines at a pedestrian crossing (last time I checked this was still worth 3 points). If it is too cold for the police on patrol to stop and deal with what they apparently consider an insignificant issue, why will any driver treat road laws as anything other than a minor inconvenience
Chances are they did just ignore it, paperwork is a chore for such minor things. Plus it'll take up their time when they could be required at a more important call.
Additionally you don't know if they ignored it, they could have been on their way to another job (just because their blues and twos are not on doesn't mean they ain't on a case).
Essentially we need more cops, less paperwork to allow them to crack on with the jobs and then people will start to think more about the risk of using the phone because the likelihood of being caught jumps.
We wont get more cops whilst the only thing being measured is £.
Article saidMotorists who are speeding or under the influence of drink or drugs when there is a fatal accident could also be treated by the courts in the same way as those convicted of manslaughter, and be given life sentences.
Brilliant. So fail to see say a child in the road at 30.0000 mph and you're off scott free, fail to see said child at 30.000009 mph and you do life.
OK, i exaggerate, but what we need are SENSIBLE, APPLICABLE, and ENFORCEABLE rules, not some pandering to some arbitrary and out of date parameter.
It's simple. If you kill someone with your car, you were driving too fast. I don't care if you were doing 7, 17, 70 or 700mph, the fact you killed someone by hitting them with your car means you were driving dangerously.
if we REALLY want to reduce road casualties on the UK roads we need:
1) More TRAFPOL, able to apply judgement (yes, even leniency!) on the spot, and not rely on machine judgement that turns everything into black and white
2) Harder driving tests, with retests, with proper suspension / bans for people who repeatedly break the law (ie, one case of mild speeding, nogas, but keep doing it, and the penalty increases dramatically
3) A proper review of speed limits in the uk (i can drive at 85 mph in Europe, but just 70 in the UK??)
if we do those things, none of which are cheap or easy, then we CAN reduce casualties. Anything else is a complete waste of time.
How many times does it have to be repeated? Hands free phones are not safe. No one should be talking/texting/interacting with a phone while driving.
Is it any more distracting than chatting to a mate in the passenger seat? If it is then do you have any evidence to back this up, and why is it perfectly legal?
FYI i dont have a handsfree kit of any type and always pull over if i need to use my phone. But I have used one in the past and it wasn't distracting in the least.
As others have said, we need more police/traffic officers to detect and prosecute under existing laws before we need tougher penalties.
How about compulsory car kits ?
No, just no. I had the option of one in my current car and declined as I find them as distracting as holding the phone. The work vans have hands free kits and I refuse to use them, far too easy to concentrate on the conversation and not what's going on around you. At least with a passenger they can see when it's time to shut up!
Anyone else think we're taking a step backwards with the widespread introduction of touch screens in cars?
Yep, more so with the ones that duplicate your phone on them. Who in their right mind thought putting Apps on a screen on the dash was a good idea 😯
More detection and prosecution is needed
and education. Most drivers don't realise that what they are doing is dangerous - they think they are capable of driving safely while doing whatever it is.
It's simple. If you kill someone with your car, you were driving too fast. I don't care if you were doing 7, 17, 70 or 700mph, the fact you killed someone by hitting them with your car means you were driving dangerously.
You haven't read the thread about the guy who stepped out in front of a lorry? Sometimes, shit happens even when you are driving well.
Is it any more distracting than chatting to a mate in the passenger seat? If it is then do you have any evidence to back this up, and why is it perfectly legal?
Yes it is. Try google.
When something happens - braking traffic, someone running a light in front of you, stomping on the brakes, whatever then a passenger will tend to shut up. It also takes more concentration to have a conversation that isn't physically there with you.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=passenger+vs+hands+free
I think TJ nailed it in the first reply. Like so many other crimes, we have laws in place already. They just need to be enforced and punished. More active road policing, zero tolerance, and no mitigating circumstances to avoid a disqualification. Almost impossible though given budgets and conflicting demands on Police time and resources.
Actually, I'll contradict myself. Replace the current disqualification system, which I believe is a bit bureaucratic with having to apply to DVLA to get your licence back, with a "licence suspension" system. Reach the points total - let's reduce it to 9 - and you can't drive for one calendar month, though your employer must keep your job open for you on a first suspension. Long enough to be a major inconvenience, potentially have big cost implications and hopefully make you realise a licence is worth looking after.
And a motoring fine to equal a weeks salary, no upper threshold.
So ignore my first paragraph then....
For all those wanting compulsory retests every X years, where we live they can't even organise enough instructors for those just taking their tests, 6 month waiting lists..
And we don't need longer sentences when the ones available aren't used to the max.
Yes it is. Try google.
Nah, got better things to do. I genuinely didn't know so i'm glad that a smart ass minion on here did it for me...although I was looking for hard evidence backed by stats rather than anecdotal .. so best get back on the case.
It also takes more concentration to have a conversation that isn't physically there with you.
not IMO...but then I'm not a simpleton and can do two things at once (as my 25 year clean driving history with no accidents proves)... Maybe this isn't true of you and the majority of other drivers however, hence my original question...
As above really, more enforcement not necessarily more severe possible punishment, though better application of current guidelines would be good too.
As the roads get more congested people are driving more and more erratically, badly and just dangerously. Not enough chance of being caught to think twice about their behaviour.
Then others see the going un-punished and think it's OK to do the same.
It's simple. If you kill someone with your car, you were driving too fast. I don't care if you were doing 7, 17, 70 or 700mph, the fact you killed someone by hitting them with your car means you were driving dangerously.
Bet you wont say that when someone runs into you through no fault of your own and you end up killing them.
Off with your head.
For all those wanting compulsory retests every X years, where we live they can't even organise enough instructors for those just taking their tests, 6 month waiting lists..
Do you mean Driving Instructors or Examiners ?
Legislation and enforcement requires both political will and resources. Government will not pursue legislation that potentially disenfranchises the majority of the population who in the main consider motoring offenses to be trivial. We also have the bizarre interpretation of the judiciary who consider the removal or a driving licence to be in breach of the drivers human rights and a societal attitude that road casualties and fatalities to be some form of acceptable collateral damage. Just wait for the likes of the AA to bleat on about how hard-done drivers will be due to the risk - meanwhile, vulnerable road users will continue to be killed. Roll-on autonomous vehicles...I have more faith in technology than humans to operate safely.
Bet you wont say that when someone runs into you through no fault of your own and you end up killing them.
Isn't that the point - laws should be for the greater good, even if potentially inconveniences you as an individual at some point?
Quite apart from the fact that 'someone runs into you through no fault of your own' is really very rare (the suicide by truck that was documented on here being one of the few exceptions) - if you're around pedestrians who 'might run into your path at any time' you shouldn't be driving at a speed that will kill them. Hence 20mph limit in urban areas.
The focus on prison time is wrong as well - it's not a effective deterrent. It should be driving bans/retests for dangerous driving but should all all bans should come with a suspended jail sentence. Drive while banned and you do prison time.
Prison isn't constructive as it is. But having the person in prison is better than them serving a driving ban with suspended sentence tbqfh! You're not thinking of the victims families.
[I]Do you mean Driving Instructors or Examiners ? [/I]
Sorry, meant Examiners.
[i]Quite apart from the fact that 'someone runs into you through no fault of your own' is really very rare (the suicide by truck that was documented on here being one of the few exceptions) - if you're around pedestrians who 'might run into your path at any time' you shouldn't be driving at a speed that will kill them. Hence 20mph limit in urban areas.[/I]
Chap just stepped out on me as I was riding up the Finchley Road on my m/c one morning, he was looking the other way as he ran out. Luckily (for me) I didn't fall off, he on the other hand had a trip in an ambulance.
Read all this again, how about we flip the technology...
Rather than promote connectivity of Bluetooth, use technology so it's not possible to use a phone with the engine running, 999 excepted?
Do you mean Driving Instructors or Examiners ?Sorry, meant Examiners.
Exactly, there aren't enough examiners to get learners through in a reasonable timeframe also, every Driving Instructor I know is booked solid so in theory it would be a good idea but, unless there is massive investment in Examiners and loads more people become instructors, it would be completely unworkable.
That's why it will never happen.
Prison isn't constructive as it is. But having the person in prison is better than them serving a driving ban with suspended sentence tbqfh! You're not thinking of the victims families.
It depends what you're trying to achieve. We generally only jail people when they're a risk to the public - it's a very expensive and destructive thing to do to lock someone up. Few deaths caused by driving aren't deliberate - ie they're not 'murder'. If someone shows themselves unfit to operate an industrial machine we don't lock them up we stop them using it (or make sure they're trained to do it safely).
If 14 years in prison isn't enough of a deterrent, then neither will be 20 years, 30 years, or any other arbitrary figure.
Raising sentences like that seems a complete waste of time, which will only result in paying more into the prison system: money that could be spent on better policing. That's if anyone was ever given anywhere close to the maximum sentence.
I don't really agree either, that one person distracted by their phone should be sentenced to life imprisonment, whilst another equally distracted person gets 6 points and a small fine. It's the same crime. The rest is down to shit luck. And that's part of the whole problem: the attitude is that it's fine, as long as you're 'doing no harm'.
And the whole thing with touch screens in cars, connecting to your phone and loading apps...that's crazy. In my opinion that kind of technology needs banned, otherwise it makes the whole mobile phone thing unenforceable. It's a complete joke.
The whole thing is just worrying really. Guy behind me on the A1 the other week, transit van, speed varying between 20 and 60mph in heavy traffic, cup of coffee in one hand, texting away on mobile phone in the other....the WHOLE TIME, until I turned off about 45 minutes later. Couple of weeks ago, crawling along in a queue, woman in front facebooking the entire time, watched her veer off into the oncoming traffic. So many people think it's safe at traffic lights, sitting in queues, etc. It really isn't.
Would be interesting to see accident statistics actually, because it's a very modern problem which is still growing.
[quote=rickmeister ]Read all this again, how about we flip the technology...
Rather than promote connectivity of Bluetooth, use technology so it's not possible to use a phone with the engine running, 999 excepted?
Hmm, presumably you'd also suggest disabling data so people can't play on FB - in which case no more live traffic and re-routing for those of us using a phone as a satnav.
A) whilst its best if more people are detected stiifer sentences will deter some and that's better than nothing. I think that all driving offences need at least two zeros on the end of a fine and mandatory ban. No judicial involvement. Make it legislation. Ultimately we need phones that block cars engines. No one needs them that much. Just pull over. Want to navigate? Use as map or a satnav.
Why the hell would you want FB? You are driving. Individual needs are not important.
Lock them up. They have proved they don't respect society so remove them from it. A criminals feelings are subservient to anything else involved in their crime.
I don't want FB - I was simply suggesting that just disabling voice calls misses a lot of the dangerous use.
...in which case no more live traffic and re-routing for those of us using a phone as a satnav.
This seems to be a bit of a grey area tbh, and using your phone as a sat-nav could already be considered illegal depending on how you interpret the law. You are essentially using a 'handheld device' and risking 6 points by doing so.
I just looked this up myself because I have used a phone as sat-nav on occasion - I'm not trying to get on any high horses or anything. I would however be happy to go out and spend £50 on a real sat-nav if I thought it would make the roads safer, and would wholeheartedly support the outright banning of mobile devices for this use. But it seems such a ban may already be in place!?
You are essentially using a 'handheld device' and risking 6 points by doing so.
It's not a handheld device if you have it mounted in a holder on your screen or dash (like a satnav). Equally, you could legally use your phone mounted in this was in handsfree speakerphone mode.
If you are holding your phone in your hand it's a handheld device.
Deterrant with high punishments doesn't really work with motoring because nobody is thinking "Well it's worth the risk since it's only 7 years if I kill someone"- they're thinking it's safe, I won't hit anyone, and I won't get caught. And mostly they're right- dangerous driving is incredibly commonplace but rarely has consequences.
Dangerous and careless driving is normalised, people just don't think they're doing anything wrong. Many dangerous drivers will think this is a great idea because of course, [i]they're[/i] not dangerous drivers.
Attitudes can be changed- it was done with seatbelts and with drink driving. Education and enforcement, not just token "making an example"
Place I'd start, personally, is with letting people off because they need to drive for work. What's that all about? I need to work with kids for my job, I wouldn't expect to be let off with possessing child porn "But yer 'onor, I'll lose me livelihood!" "Oh well in that case...". Makes no sense. If you depend on your licence to work, drive appropriately. People who drive for work should be held to a higher standard, not lower.
butcher - MemberThis seems to be a bit of a grey area tbh, and using your phone as a sat-nav could already be considered illegal depending on how you interpret the law. You are essentially using a 'handheld device' and risking 6 points by doing so.
Does a phone remain a "handheld device" when it's in a cradle?
"Does a phone remain a "handheld device" when it's in a cradle?"
No - it is only hand-held if it is literally held in the hand.
[i]For the purposes of this regulation—
(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;[/i]