Mobiles are so much more widespread now (more than one per person in the UK, I read recently) that it's inevitable that they will continue to be used (hands held, hands free, earpiece...) in the car, like it or not, so the legislation attempts, rather feebly, to curb the worst excesses.
From what I see every day as a company car driver, I am convinced the following are all inherently dangerous if done whilst driving: (1) Holding a phone to the ear; (2) talking loudly and listening intently into a mobile phone; (3) fiddling with ANSWER / END / SEND etc. controls (let's not even think about texting!) (These three functions are common with hands-held devices, which is why I am glad this is banned and wish it could be enforced more rigorously. Earpieces are banned in Spain and for quite similar reasons, IMHO).
As a lesser of two evils, a handsfree set (the Ford V2C system in my Focus is particularly good) enables me to answer a call safely and usually briefly, but the caller can be irritating by talking too much, too long, too loudly, demanding or giving too much information and generally causing a distraction. Colleagues keep calls to the absolute minimum but clients do not, so I generally let those calls run to voicemail (the caller's name or number flashes up in the radio display).
What I really want is some "reverse technology": a device which detects that the engine is on and shifts my mobile to voicemail (telling my caller that I am driving) and goes back to "manual" and redials missed calls for me once I switch the engine off. (If I switch my mobile off I keep forgetting to switch it back on again afterwards!
|
|
What I'm getting at, somewhat obliquely, is that the reason people do it is because they don't perceive it to be dangerous. And of course there's no proportionality (think stationary traffic) which tends to bring a rule into contempt.
|
|
|
Mobiles are so much more widespread now (more than one per person in the UK, I read recently)
Hmmmm... just like cars really.
Put a monkey in a cage with a lot of tins, it's going to clang them about. Hmmmmm?
|
|
|
|
... it's not inherently dangerous, or any more potentially distracting than lots of other things people do while driving, unwrapping the Wurthers, changing the CD, lighting a gasper... >>
www.progressiveic.com/n8sept03.htm
www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2927
I think it has been discussed numerous times on previous threads here as to why talking on a phone (irrespective of whether it is hand-held or hands-free) is inherently dangerous, why it cannot be compared to the distraction caused by other activities such as talking to a passenger, or listening to the radio ( or whatever else the superiority-complex drivers use as an excuse to continue using phones while driving ).
Drivers who hold the unshakeable belief that they can drive safely while talking on a mobile phone should try to get a session on the simulator at a research lab.
Edited by jbif on 11/12/2009 at 22:55
|
as each month goes by more and more drivers are driving and using mobile phones
it really annoys me,im not a scientist just a guy ,but i can see that these people arent in control of their surroundings
if they killed someone in my family then a court wouldnt help them im afraid
|
|
|
>>Drivers who hold the unshakeable belief that they can drive safely while talking on a mobile phone should try to get a session on the simulator at a research lab
All that proves to "superiority complex drivers" is that being on the phone will affect your score in a video game...
I am amazed at the ability of WVM to drive apparently very fluently with phone clapped to ear'ole, knees and elbows coming into play. Practice might not make perfect, but it must certainly build confidence and just further confirms to the phone user that no harm comes of it.
I'm interested in the stats as well - if 2.8% of drivers observed are actually on the 'phone, what %age of drivers habitually do it? Assuming the ones who are doing it spend say 10% of their driving time on the phone, that would suggest that nearer 30% of drivers habitually offend. The fact that people are on the phone so much and aren't crashing left right and centre suggests that humans can cope quite well with doing it. For sure it distracts, but people naturally compensate for that - drive more slowly, pause the conversation or texting during hazardous manoeuvres, or whatever, which perhaps isn't as natural or even possible with a video game simulator.
I'm not advocating doing it, but I just don't swallow the nanny-knows-best approach and the patronising, over-simplified pseudo-statistics.
|
I'm not advocating doing it, but I just don't swallow the nanny-knows-best approach and the patronising, over-simplified pseudo-statistics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> stand at a busy junction and watch people pull out while on the phone,
this might just change your perception,especially if your trying to cross the road to the village shop for a crusty bun
|
|
worse than a Phone to the ear, is a ciggie, my ex once nearly set fire to a car, when she dropped one, then she nearly crashed panicking.....
Edited by the swiss tony on 11/12/2009 at 23:33
|
|
|
|
.. the patronising, over-simplified pseudo-statistics. ..>>
I agree that the statistics referred to in the title thread are not worthy of comment, and which is why I have said nothing about that.
However, the discussion that flowed from it that questioned whether using phones (of whatever type) while driving was any more or less dangerous than other in-car activities is IMO worthy of comment.
|
Not surprised at all. A law that is totally unenforced and unenforceable.
Well .. if the will is there, it could be enforceable..
Penalties do not match up with the offence. It's driving without due care and attention..
See it all the time especialy white vans and big lorries...
A sure way of stopping it is to seize the offenders vehicle there and then and impound it for 30 days . And forcing the driver to make their own way home.. at their own expense. Hire of police car? £10 per mile.
That would mean all commercial drivers would stop - due to lost business (or food and perishable cargoes).
|
Once again though the law is written to the capabilities of the lowest common denominator. Most motoring laws are.
The only skill measure we currently have in use is the driving test which assessed the abilities of the candidate on the day and in some cases decades ago.
There are indeed plenty of drivers who shouldn't attempt to use telephones, eat sandwiches, deal with children or begin to try to do anything other than drive as that is the limit of their skillset.
There are indisputably others who are intelligent or experienced enough to cope with driving and low level concurrent tasks. The law though treats them all the same.
Tangentially for example, there will be those who are simply not safe at high speed as they don't have either the experience or capability and others who are more able to cope but again no distinction is made by the law.
As it happens, I support the ban on handhelds and would welcome a total ban on making or receiving phone calls in moving vehicles. It would make for a much less stressful life for many but to blanket argue that it is beyond the wits of an experienced driver to deal with a phone call in any circumstances is too simplistic.
|
The problem is that they may (note the word "may", not "can") handle a phone in ordinary circumstances, but when something happens in front of them, which when driving happens very quickly, they are unable to react quickly enough. I agree that much of the time motoring rules are dumbed down, but in this particular case I actually think that its right for all of us, no matter how "good" you think you are!
Watch that Cops programme where they traced what had happenned when that lorry had rear ended that line of stationary cars on the motorway in Hampshire... and the interview with the girl's sister afterwards...
That shows, as clear as day, why using a mobile in a moving vehicle is both stupid and dangerous and why it should be banned.
|
|
|
|
Seizing the phone is probably a good place to start, and I'd have no problem with that if sensibly applied.
The price of that solution will be that there will be no sense or feeling in its application, and phones will be seized from people caught looking at the phone while parked, because they are "in control of a vehicle".
I'm not actually making an argument for using a hand-held, just observing why people do it.
And FWIW, although habitual offenders no doubt become very facile with it, it doesn't make it safe - a bit like drink, which has the dual effect of making driving worse at the same time as conferring a sense of invincibility.
It isn't the thought of a trivial fixed penalty that deters me, it's that I don't think it's worth the small chance that I will make a mistake and kill somebody. That doesn't deter the "it'll never happen to me" set, which appears to be quite a lot of people.
|
|
As I have stated many times before, I too wish phone use of any kind would be banned in moving vehicles. I would much prefer to be left alone while driving. However, until it is and my business competitors are also prevented from using them, I will continue to use my handsfree facility. This may well be "stupid" but until there is a level playing field it would seriously disadvantage me. This is not arrogance re ability or an ignorance or dismissal of the potential dangers it's just a fact of modern business life.
|
Humph,
There's no call, surely, that is so urgent it can't be returned after you've parked up?
Having said that, handsfree phones are legal, and were I in your position, I would probably use one - after a token few weeks of saying I wasn't going to.
My employers have issued strict instructions about not answering or using phones while on the move.
I think it's more to cover their back than anything else, but at least it means I know where I stand.
|
There's no call surely that is so urgent it can't be returned after you've parked up?
Quite right, and on an individual call basis that is a very sensible attitude. However, when the average working day requires between 30-40 phone calls to be answered or made and a sequence of long distance drives to complete other tasks and when the average daily email count exceeds 100 when you finally do get home or back to an office........
Very easy to say ignore it if each call in its own small way was not the very key to one's family income.
Like I say, I'd have a total ban but until we do, being unavailable just doesn't work because if my customers can't get me they will simply phone the next supplier on their list.
Catch 22.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 12/12/2009 at 10:24
|
...the average working day requires between 30-40 phone calls to be answered or made and a sequence of long distance drives...
Happily, I have to do neither of the above, so am able to take a strict stance on the very few mobile calls I have to make and the even lower number that I receive.
|
|
|
I also use hands free, which I don't consider an unacceptable risk for straightforward calls - if it gets a bit involved I tend to pull off the road or defer it if I can.
|
I have to use handsfree due to the time I spend driving. If the call is likely to be long or mentally challenging I park up at the next opportunity or offer to call back. I have difficulty concentrating 100% on a call whilst negotiating city traffic.
I've mentioned this before but I don't know anyone who admits to having an accident whilst using the phone but I know 2 people who rear ended a line of standing traffic whilst conversing with their children in the back seat. I think people should generally be made more aware of the risks they take and responsibilities they have when they get behind the behind the wheel of a car. There seems to be too much of a comfort zone and an assumed "well I don't speed so I'm ok" attitude to driving.
|
There is of course an alternative answer.
Ban anything other than single seater cars, no heater system, no in car entertainment, lights that turn on and off automatically depending on the weather, and all aotomatic.
All two lane roads could be made into four lanes due to the reduced width needed and congestion would be a thing of the past. Parking wouldn't be a problem and the carbon footprint would be minimal.
The easier way would be to enforce the current law on hand held mobile phone usage, but that's too easy and until speed cameras can detect and define it, it will never happen.
Pat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
