Safe Speed Forums

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Bloody Nannies!

One person, sadly, is killed apparently because a driver was talking on a hands free phone connection.

In that case, surely there should be far more legislation to cover every death world wide, even when it is only a one off!

Getting back to driving - there could be any number of other reasons as to why he was unware of what was going on around him, but if we accept that it was his phone call, does that mean that every person who has a conversation in a car, be it with themselves, on a hands free call, with a passenger alongside them or their kids in the back, or even the dog is 4 times more likely to crash?

There are risks in life in everything we do, some more calculated than others, but generally speaking you are probably more likely to break your neck falling down the stairs at home than you are to cause an accident because you are talking to someone whilst driving!

Drivers fall asleep at the wheel, some get away with it and others don't - some cause horrendous accidents while others may just have a little bump. Some accidents are caused by flies, bees, etc entering the car and buzzing around the driver; some because the driver has sneezed - possibly due to hay fever or a cold - we cannot legislate against every eventuality and would be wrong to do so in any case.

Accidents are just that and can happen to even the most careful person, because accidents are non descriminatory and if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, that too is an accident - but it could be that that is what was planned out for you before you were even born - I don't know, but all this legislation will end up making people so paranoid that legislation itself will become the future cause of accidents, although it seems to be well on its way already!

We have just banned using any sort of telephone when driving our company cars. This was on the basis of anecdotal evidence from our sales people about missing motorway junctions and almost driving into people when talking hands-free.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

We had a driver who crashed into the central reservation because a spider dropped down when he used the sunvisor.
BAN SUN VISORS!

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Sorry, ploughing into the back of a transit van without "seeing" it is not an accident in any way, shape or form.

By that standard I can decide to sit upside down in my car and work the pedals with my hands and steer with my feet, and if I hit anybody, that's an accident.

I wasn't too against phone use whilst driving, as long as it was handsfree, but I must say this story has changed my mind.

weepej, this one story has really changed your mind?

To be honest, it really is a bit stupid to be on the phone, hands free of not, for that long. Nevertheless, was it actually PROVEN that him being on the phone caused the crash and not something else?

He went into the back of a stationary vehicle without applying his brakes.

Either he was looking the otehr way (unlikely) or his mind was somewhere else.

Yeah, I was on the fence about talking into a phone whilst driving, but this proves it for me, will not be using the handsfree any more.


I'm already vehemently against mobile phone holding whilst driving, I actually saw a guy today mount the side a traffic island after observing him going round a corner, changing gear with one had and using the other to hold the phone, I presume he was keeping the wheel turned with knee pressure. I was so angry I nearly phoned the police.

So, we've had all this extra legislation about not using a hand-held when driving (although a CB radio mike, or a police 2 way radio mike is OK) and we now get this dreadful event where the miscreant is prosecuted under a law that's been around for ages?

Great! I knew there was a point to all this new legislation!

As he didn't apply his brakes at all, then I suspect it could be something else. I know we can spend all day debating how much a mobile can distract driving but I can't belive a mobile phone conversation can distract you so much that you don't even attempt to brake for a stationary vehicle.

I can.

When we're asked to recall things or construct visual representations we may have our eyes open, but something else is going on. People can be so deep in thought sometimes that when you snap them out of it it's like waking somebody up; "you were miles away" is quite a common expression.

I think this guy was "miles away" when he ploughed into the back of the van.

Again though, it's down to time and place. I won't get into a deep conversation in the car, whether it be with a passenger or on the phone. If the conversation involves visualisation, or deep understanding of something then I'm too preoccupied with driving to be able to do it.

I still maintain that short calls with simple questions like 'are you going to be home for tea' are OK IN THE RIGHT SITUATION. Anything else is simply DWDCA and no extra legislation is required.

You simply cannot ban handsfree communication because we've become too reliant on it (rightly or wrongly)

Quite frankly, although he's obviously to blame, surely his mother should have known better than to engage him in a long conversation whilst he was driving?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Folk have crashed whilst getting carried away with some song on the radio or the politics prog on R4.


We cannot ban everything. I think though that highlighting how he came to kill someone should be used to try to teach others as to what can happen if you get engaged in some argument with your mum or other on the hands free phone.. or even have an argument as tangible occupants in the car.


If any of the kids "play up" when we are travelling.. we look for nearest place to pull over to sort them out. Does not happen often as we get our kids to be "playing spot the cam van"

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

When you are a learner driver even turing on the lights or windscreen wipers is a total concentration that interupts the rest of your driving.

Driving whilst using a two way radio or handsfree or even tuning your radio needs practice. I also believe this driver was also performing a third task when he crashed. Drivers are far less likly to nod off or multi task when they are engaged in driving. Driving at on a limiter at 56mph on a streight duel carriageway is not engaging.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I don't really see why this incident would change your mind. If he couldn't concentrate on the road enough to see a queue of stationary traffic ahead because of a phonecall then what other minor distraction might have caused the same accident? If he was stupid enough to make a phonecall which took all of his attention then he would probably be stupid enough to read the paper or watch TV while driving.

The only way to completely prevent these kind of inattention collisions is to ban driving.

A few people can drive safely whilst 'phoning but from my personal experiences most, including myself, cannot.

A driver on a mobile, especially not handsfree, can be spotted and avoided from a great distance! While out driving, my wife or myself will say "There's a 'phoner!" and 9 times out of 10 we'll be right. They usually drive slower than the rest of the traffic and meander along the white line. Try it yourself! (The guessing game, I mean.)

I think that this successful prosecution proves that the DBDD legislation works.

Can we now see the driving with a mobile phone law repealed?

Charging people after the event is all well and good, but helping to prevent the event in the first place is better is it not?

Of course it is, but this event just proves that the mobile phone law is sending out the wrong message.

In order to prevent accidents like this, the message should be 'Concentrate on your driving at all times'. That covers everything from conversations to playing with the radio.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.