Safe Speed Forums

Somebody's not listening.

Ah but that's moving the goalposts somewhat, is it not? I'm sure that if seepd limits were set high enough, nobody would break them - but that would be a bit like saying "I'd support a ban on hand-held mobile phone calls over "x" minutes" (where "x" is a number that I myself would be unlikely to exceed) .

Could it not be argued (if indeed it is true) that speeders would HAVE to pay more attention, because things are happening that bit quicker? We need to understand not the "absolute" level of attention that the mobile call demands, but the relative amount of attention (relative to the amount that would have been given to the driving task if the driver had not been making the call). In other words, if I'm driving along paying what I believe is "sufficient" attention to what's going on, and I'm also devoting a percentage of my available attention to listening to a radio programme, then the phone rings and instead of listening to the radio programme I divert that proportion of my attention to the phone call, am I paying any less attention to the driving task than I was before the phone rang?

(And YES, I absolutely accept that a mobile call is likely to demand MORE attention than a radio programme, however involving the radio might have been!)

The point I'm trying to make is that even when driving. most of us do NOT give 100% of our available concentration to the task. The amount of attention that the mobile call absorbs is (I think) the difference between what we would have been devoting to driving if we weren't on the phone and what we are actually devoting to it during the call.

That wasn't very illuminating! Care to explain WHY?

Plenty of stuff here:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24750

Nah, sorry, your link doesn't work. It just seems to pull up a copy of a thread with which I'm already very familar already (indeed, have contributed to)! You need to understand that when someone doesn't share your point of view, it doesn't necessarily mean they haven't been listening. It could, for example mean they, er, don't share your point of view!

A very valid point. I'm sure if someone's brain was scanned during the task of an average drive, you would only find (this is a wild guess) about 80% of the brains thoughts would be towards the actual road ahead, the other 20% would be about how we were feeling, what we were going to do tonight, the work problems we have , the wife's attitude towards us this morning, the fact that we need a pee/drink/meal, listening to the radio/talking to passengers....whatever but there would be a significant part of our brain thinking about something else.

Talking on the phone would obviously cancel out thinking about the wife, our work problems, where we were going for a drink tonight, taking the dog to the vet, talking to passengers, etc. etc so the effort of talking on the phone would only replace some other usage for that part of the brain that maybe wasn't on the task of driving anyway.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

So a blow job while trying to drive isn't out of the question then?

"Hey Doris, why wait 'till were home. Don't worry, it's entirely safe." Zip...

Where do we draw the line here on SS FFS?

Sorry, I meant where do you draw the line Robin

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Ouch!

That's the pain in my ribs from laughing so hard.

There are countless examples across these fora of you ducking out when the debate got too much for you, I'm sure someone has a list.

Your 'debating technique' consists of drive-by throwaway comments with little or no basis, merit or substance, and then complete refusal to engage in meaningful discussion.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Nope, I was wrong, he hasn't even got close to 'it'.

Let me pull a phrase out of my quote and add some bold to see if it makes it clearer, because I'd be pretty upset to think that you of all people were being deliberately obtuse Tone:

...undertaking an entirely safe activity, under circumstances where it remained completely safe...

Now, if you think 'whilst driving' is a circumstance under which oral sex retains it's inherent safety (we needn't argue the toss over its safety as an individual activity compared to making a phone call, but you're probably less likely to get the herp from a handset) then I wouldn't be too quick to jump on your high-horse about mobile phone use!

Do you think oral sex undertaken in a stationary car, with the recipient sat behind the wheel, should be criminalised as a danger to others (neglecting any issue of public decency) at all, let alone to the same degree as in a car driving past a crowd of school-children?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

That, as you know, was exaggeration for the sake of emphasis – or at least I hope you know.

Guess what’s coming next? I don’t think I’ve said this before so I hope you’re sitting down because this is going to floor you...

It would be an unnecessary distraction, just like using a HH phone.

Am I not saying it right or something I could try and put it in French or Hebrew if it helps?

I wasn't trying to debase the conversation to that level but if that's a serious question I have no problem with 'yes' and 'no' answers, unlike you. So my answer is no, if the car is stationary and somewhere private no I don't have a problem with that and I think you’re just being flippant now.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

The passive activity of listening to the radio is, as you say, trivial and much less likely to distract than a mobile call but what happens when the phone rings is that the call becomes the MAIN activity and not just an adjunct to the driving task. Your main focus is taken from the road to the conversation. It's not just a question of your "spare capacity" being used in a different way.

Many driving skills are not overtly conscious actions and are reactions through our mind to what we see and hear after a long learning period of experience, for example, the emergency braking response. You don't actually think "I'd better brake hard now" when a deer jumps out. These reflex actions are IMO suppressed by the refocussing of our mind onto the phone call which requires conscious processing of data.

So , the answer to your question



is YES.

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

An unnecessary distraction at a time when distraction does not increase danger, hmm, better ban tv then.



Not at all, we've now reached the point where we seemingly agree that an innocuous action, undertaken under circumstances where is remains so, should not be punished, yet this is exactly what the specific legislation on mobile phones does, and the pre-existing legislation did not.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I'm talking about an unnecessary distraction when driving which does increase danger. That is what I have been saying all along, have you not been reading my posts?

Maybe I should track down the three nobheads who have either hit me or sh1t me up while they were on the mob and apologise to them for my behaviour? And there was me thinking it was something he did when I was happily cycling along minding my own business.

(Flippant mode on). "I'm sorry, did my elbow hurt your wing mirror as you past me talking to the Prime Minister? How may I compensate you? Would you like me to wash your car or buy your wife some shoes?"

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Now I'm not so sure, to be honest. I accept that it MIGHT be the case, but it's one thing I'd like to see more research on. My feeling is that there isn't a "yes" or " no" answer. I can certainly say that from my own personal experience, the phone call does NOT become the "main" activity. If it did, I (and plenty of others) would have crashed long before now! The "instinctive" bits of driving that you mention do complicate the issue though. I don't know enough about how the brain works, but can believe what you say.

I think the content of the call also makes a big difference. If I'm listening to a complicated Radio 4 debate (say) on something I feel strongly about, I can find myself wanting to shout at the radio on occasions. That, I believe, is a similar (though still probably a bit lower) level of involvement to a simple "what time do you think you'll be home, darling?" mobile phone call. On the other hand the "I'm leaving you and taking the childern with me" mobile phone conversation would obviously be one that demanded a bit more concentration!

So I think the answer to the question is definitely a probable "maybe"!

In any case all this relates to the conversation rather than holding the phone itself, and is still, therefore, perfectly legal.

Good, so am I, but this is exactly where the new specific legislation fails to differentiate, do you see?

It's all very well to err on the side of caution, but there is no reason why this couldn't have been undertaken using the existing legislation, which would have given defendants an opportunity to defend themselves by showing their actions were not unsafe. This would also enable a legal baseline to be established by the courts.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Something to ask yourself if you use a phone in the car (handheld or otherwise).

If you are driving along having a phone conversation, do you stop talking abruptly as required to concentrate on the road (at least from time-to-time) or do you carry on with the call while negotiating obstacles, reverse parking etc.

If you keep talking then your main activity is the call and not driving.

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

Yes I do, to be honest - even on the hands-free! Obviously, I tend not to make calls when I'm moving, but I have done so when I've judged the conditions to be condusive (quiet stretch of motorway, short, simple call, etc.). Obviously, I don't have the luxury of choosing when people are going to call ME though. If I know I'm going to be driving in more demanding conditions (e.g. middle of a big city, going somewhere unfamiliar, adverse weather & so on) then I usually just mute the phone. However, there have been a few occasions when some driving event has suddenly cropped up (like a truck drifting out into my lane just in front of me without warning) and I'll go quiet for a few seconds. I think that's the price the caller has to be prepared to pay for calling someone on a mobile when they're on the road. I've also had it happen the other way round (I'm the caller and we have to suspend the conversation for a few seconds). It's only the same as when you're on the phone in the office and someone interrupts to give you some important bit of news.

So it's definitely true that you can make the call subordinate to the driving if the occasion demands it. That's only like listening to the radio and something happening so you miss a few seconds of your programme. Your mind just instinctively seems to prioritise.

No!



The law is a blunt instrument which is a starting point to get it right. I like Steve's suggestion that the offence is too heavy for instance.




Edit: Out of interest Robin, do you think it was wrong or inappropriate for a 'back bencher' like me to bring this up and fight my corner so fervently on the open forum?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

No!



The law is a blunt instrument which is a starting point to get it right. I like Steve's suggestion that the offence* is too heavy for instance.





My point exactly Malcolm, but you said it better

Edit: Out of interest Robin, do you think it was wrong or inappropriate for a 'back bencher' like me to bring this up and fight my corner so fervently on the open forum?


*Edit: I meant penalty.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Banning mobile phone use is a bit like vaccinating kids against various illnesses.

Not all kids would succumb to the illnesses - but if they did, the consequences could be tragic.
Parents could keep their kids safer, by ensuring that they did not come into contact with infection carriers - but the risk is still there, so they ALL get vaccinated whether they like it or not.
It doesn't hurt... much. Nearly all phones will take a message, or tell you the number of the person who called!

You only have to watch customers in a shop talking on their mobiles - they wonder about trying to shop and talk, and end up forgetting some of their shopping, and have to go back for it.

Do I really want them driving on the road with me at 30, 40, 50 mph when they cannot even shop, walk and talk?
I'm sorry for the inconvenience to the smaller percentage of sensible users, but this is a one size fits all issue - a specific offence was created because it brought home to EVERYBODY that careless driving includes talking on the phone.

As somebody has said - how many people drop the phone when something goes wrong in front of them?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!