Safe Speed Forums

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArt ... ID=1660763

Motorists on mobiles are blamed for 13 crash deaths

Campaigners say figures are appalling

Exclusive
Simon McGee
Political Editor

DRIVERS using their mobile phones at the wheel contributed to the deaths of 13 motorists and injured more than 400 people last year, the Yorkshire Post can reveal.
The Department of Transport has for the first time compiled figures showing the true extent of Britain's problem with on-the-road phone use, depicting a human toll which safety campaigners last night dubbed shocking and "absolutely appalling".
There were 429 accidents in 2005 where police reported a "driver using a mobile phone" as a "contributory factor".
Of these, 29 accidents – including nine "serious" incidents but no fatalities – were in Yorkshire and Humberside.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (Rospa) and national road safety charity Brake, based in Huddersfield, both welcomed the new statistics for finally shedding some "hard facts" on the real impact of ignoring the mobile phone ban – but warned that they were probably just the tip of the iceberg.
Brake's head of campaigns, Cathy Keeler, hoped the figures would act as a "wake-up call" to drivers who were still flouting the mobile ban introduced in 2003.
"We've been calling on the Government to collect this data for years to show just how real the danger of using mobiles while driving is," she said.
"There is research out there showing that using a mobile phone while driving is as dangerous as other forms of distraction, like drink-driving, but these
figures are a real breakthrough.
"The fact is that people too often forget that cars are dangerous pieces of machinery.
"You wouldn't use a piece of machinery like a chainsaw or try to do anything else complicated while chatting away on the phone so why should people think that they can drive and do so?"
Ms Keeler added: "But these are probably just the tip of the iceberg since there'll be many other cases where the police have not been able to conclusively establish a link with someone making calls at the wheel."
Rospa's head of road safety, Kevin Clinton, stressed his charity's concerns about the supposedly-safe use of hands-free kits.
He said: "Thirteen people killed in one year because drivers are using hand-held mobile phones is absolutely appalling.
"And as shocking as these figures are, they will under-estimate the problem because they do not include accidents involving drivers using hands-free mobile phones, which is just as dangerous as using a hand-held phone.
"The figures also illustrate why it is so important for drivers not to use mobile phones while driving and we urge employers in particular to make sure their staff do not do so while driving for work."
Research in the United States has suggested that hands-free kits and headsets are as bad as hand-held phones because of the distraction caused by having a conversation.
But Ministers appear intent on addressing the problem by cracking down further on mobile handset-using drivers.
The Government's Road Safety Bill, making its way through Parliament, proposes doubling the fixed penalty from £30 to £60 – and making it an endorsable offence, subject to three-penalty points per infringement.
Last night the Department of Transport said: "We're keen to make sure that drivers are aware of the dangers of mobile phones, which is precisely why we're on course to make them an endorsable offence in the Road Safety Bill which we expect to come into law in early 2007."

***

Anyone seen national crash causation data anywhere else? I'm trying to find out where this data came from, and not least because DfT now have national data on a new contributory factor: 'exceeding speed limit' for the first time.

(I'm aware of the West Midlands Road Accident Review, and I'm working on it.)

***

13 mobile phone deaths are something of a relief. I thought it could have been quite a bit worse. Don't forget we're well over 1,200 deaths per year behind expectation - and these figures eliminate mobile phones as a significant cause (something that I was able to deduce years ago).

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I'd reached a similar conclusion, along the lines that the Police investigating fatal road accidents would be able to establish phone usage with a high degree of certainty, and that if it were as bad as everyone had thus far been assuming then they'd be shouting about it from the rooftops by now. The fact that they weren't doing tended to make me think the real figure was actually very low, and this seems to substantiate that.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

How can mobile phones be bad when it is perfectly legal to use a hand held CB radio....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I'm struggling to get this in perspective, 13 deaths and 400 injuries mobile related, but what is that out of? i.e: how many people were killed on the road last year? and how many were injured? (in total)

Ah well.... that's just a get-out clause, to enable the police (et all) to continue to use two-way radios whilst driving.

And the police can do that "safely" because all their drivers are "highly trained"

So what about bus drivers, taxi drivers, truck drivers as well as all the CB enthusiasts still out there.

I have seen a report today that says even hands free mobile usage is the same risk as drunk driving...

Seems crazy you can get busted for eating an apple whilst driving but OK to carry on a CB radio conversation.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

but how many people have a CB compared to basically the entire population having a mobile?

I know for a fact that when I drive there are times I have to ask the missus what was just said on the radio or what she just said as I've tuned them out to concentrate more on what is going on on the road. The problem with mobile phones is that they don't let you do this.


actually it's been shown in a number of different studies* to be a greater risk than being at the legal drink driving limit.

* note I haven't read the studies, just read the reports so take it as you will.

13/3221 = 0.4%
400/280,840 = 0.14%

(actually they are 2005/2004 figures, but the changes are insignificant).

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

When the first laws abouty mobiles and driving were being discussed I was asked by a client to look into it. I spoke to Herts Police (the clients local force) and thier comment was along the lines of 'in reality it makes little difference as we already stop drivers using mobile under driving without due care and attention'.

So did we actually need this law?

Given more police are being withdrawn from our roads in favour of automated enforcement is this law actually being enforced, judging by the number of drivers I still see hand and phone glued to ear, I would guess not.

So in real terms just what will be gained by making it an endorsable offence ???

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Actually the 'mobile phone law' is very speciffic as to what a mobile phone is. It lists the frequencies it has to opperate on in order to be classed as one. It is redicuoulsly speciffic. Any equiptment a radio amature could dream up is excempt, even if it were in a hand-holdable case the shape of a phone. The only reason I can see for this law is to make it easy to prossecute people.

_________________
Andrew.