Safe Speed Forums

I think the vaccination is more like wearing a seat belt, to be honest. It provides absolutely no benefit until needed. Phones aren't QUITE like that - although admit their benefit is relatively minor.

Note that (as said previously) I'm not in favour of an immediate lifting of the ban, but I'd still like to see more research to see if the "blunt instrument" could usefully be sharpened in any way. I'm not generally in favour of blanket restrictions on all, simply because a few can't deal with the situation (otherwise I'd be much happier about blanket speed limits - and low ones at that)!

1 Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (Chairman:
Sir William Stewart), “Mobile Phones and Health”,2000,UK
2 Cain and Burris, “Investigation of the use of Mobile Phones
While Driving”, Center for Urban Transport Research
College of Engineering, University of South Florida, 1999
3 M Sundeen, “Cell Phone and Highway Safety: 2001 State
Legislature Update”,National Conference of State
legislatures,August 2001,USA
4 [edit: Duplicated]
5 “The Green Flag Report on Safe Driving” Green Flag,
2000,UK
6 RAC Report on Motoring 2001, RAC Motoring Services,UK
7 RoSPA, NOP Survey, 1997,UK
8 Brown et al, “Interference between concurrent tasks of
driving and telephoning” Journal of Applied Psychology,
53(5), 1969,UK
9 Drory, A. “Effects of rest and secondary task on simulated
truck-driving task performance” Human Factors, 27(2), 1985
10 Department of California Highway Patrol, “A Special Report
to the Legislature on the Findings of the Mobile Phone
Safety Study”, 1987,USA
11 Zwahlen et al, “Safety aspects of cellular telephones in
automobiles” Proceedings of the ISATA Conference,
1988,USA
12 Boase, M., Hannigan, S.,& Porter, J.M. “Sorry, can’t talk
now… just overtaking a lorry: The definition and
experimentation investigation of the problem of driving
and hands free car phone use” In E.D. Megaw (Ed.).
Contemporary ergonomics, London:Taylor and Francis,
1988,UK
13 Hayes et al “Age-related Decrements in Automobile
Instrument Panel Task Performance” Proceedings of the
Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting, 1989,USA
14 Alm & Nilsson, “Changes in driver behaviour as a function
of hands-free mobile telephones: a simulator study”
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26(4), 1990
15 Brookhuis et al, “The effects of mobile telephoning on
driving performance”, Accident Analysis and Prevention,
23(4), 1991
16 Parkes et al, “Car phone use and motorway driving”,
Research Institute Loughborough, Leicestershire, 1991
17 Fairclough et al, “Effects of hands free telephone use on
driving behaviour”,HUSAT Research Institute UK, 1991,UK
18 Parkes, “Drivers Business Decision-making ability Whilst
Using Carphones”,HUSAT Research Centre, 1991,UK
19 McKnight & McKnight, “The effect of cellular phone use
upon driver attention”,National Public Services Research
Institute, 1991,USA
20 Serafin et al “Car phone usability: a human factors
laboratory test” Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting, 1993,USA
21 Pachiaudi & Chapon,“Car phone and road safety” XIVth
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced
Safety of Vehicles,No. 94-S2-0-09. 1994, France
22 In Briem & Hedman. “Behavioural effects of mobile
telephone use during simulated driving” Ergonomics,
38(12), 1995, Sweden
23 Alm & Nilsson, “The effects of a mobile telephone task on
driver behaviour in a car following situation” Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 27(5), 1995
24 Nilsson and Nabo,A “Evaluation of application 3:
Intelligent cruise control simulator experiment. Effects of
different levels of automation on driver behaviour,
workload and attitudes”,VTIsartryck No. 266 (Reprint of
Chapter 5 in the evaluation of results deliverable No. 10,
DRIVE II Project V2006“EMMIS”), Swedish National Road
Transport Research Institute, Linkoping, 1995
25 Cremades et al “Hand-held Car Phones and Driving
Performance: Projected Risks and Implications for
Prevention”, Journal of health Education 28 (2), 1997,USA

26 Wikman et al, “Driving Experience and Time Sharing
During In-car Tasks on Roads of DifferentWidths”,
Ergonomics 41 (3), 1998


27 Haigney, “Mobile Phone Use Whilst Driving:The Safest
Set-up?”, RoSPA and Aston University, 1998,UK
28 Lamble et al, “Cognitive load and detection thresholds in
car following situations: safety implications for using
mobile (cellular) telephones while driving”, Accident
Analysis & Prevention 31, 1999

And the likelihood of cars being forced to have mobile phone blockers installed is high, very high. Almost certainly the EU will move in that direction.

Oh, and: http://www.walletpop.co.uk/2011/05/25/the-black-box-best-hope-to-cut-young-driver-premiums/

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I can't see why as this would stop the perfectly reasonable action of a passenger using a phone. However, there is one factor that will prevent compulsory car phone blockers being introduced. The EU politicians, sitting in the back of their limos, will feel that their calls are far too important to be stopped.

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

EU politicians can form the law introducing blockers with section that excludes their vehicles and vehicles of others that require such exclusions.

To be honest, if such devices WERE to be installed, I would, at least, accept it as being a consistent approach...

...assuming ALL forms of mobile electronic comminucation were subject to it!

However, they'd have to think long and hard about the benefits because there would be a real backlash if someone lost their life BECAUSE a driver couldn't make or receive an emergency call on the move. Even our current law allows the use of a hand held mobile whilst driving to make a 999 call.

Leaving aside those (undeiably rare) occasions, what about my "100 mile backtrack" scenario where I do the decent thing, leave the phone off, get all my messages when I stop and find that I had to visit a client 100 back the way I'd come? That's a lot of extra miles (and fatigue, and time exposed to danger etc) that could have been avoided by a very simple and short hands-free conversation.

This would work and be typical of the "do as I say, not as I do" culture of politicians where they imagine themselves more important than others. However, dignitaries and others "requiring exclusion" will not always be in their exempt cars and they could not tolerate a widely drawn block on their activities. They have to make calls from their mistress's car, you know.

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

I was thinking that the mobile phone legislation was like immunisation, because it does not differentiate between sensible users or idiotic ones, they are ALL subject to the law, just in case one of them slips up and kills somebody.

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

If somebody was to start a rumour on Twitter or Facebook, that mobile phones in cars enabled a government satellite to track their every movement, I suspect most of the idiotic users would stop using them!

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

Well you don’t have to leave your phone off now you have got a good hands-free and hopefully it will never happen again. If I were you though Mole, knowing that it could have been work-related, I would have kept the phone on but pulled in at the next service station to check it out. On average, unless you are unlucky to have just passed one, you’re usually no more than 10 or 15 minutes away. (I think there are some unusual exceptions up north mind).

For me, it’s been a test of how many times I can say the same thing in a different way. As I've said, it’s not an esoteric subject but one of common sense IMO.

In the beginning people were using speed inappropriately and so speed limits were introduced - and we have got to where we are today.

In the beginning people were using HH mobs inappropriately and so mobile phone limits were introduced - and we have got to where we are today.

I think it was necessary and right to introduce these laws, both of them. What is wrong is the how they were introduced, the penalty and enforcement. I don’t know why or where this three points thing came from? It’s like splitting the atom to them and no smaller denomination is possible. What’s wrong with one or two points for an offence? I’d like to know historically why it’s always three points? But that’s a different question.

I do think three points and a big fine is a sledgehammer to crack a nut if the driver is using it more safely than others might. For instance, in your case Mole, I don’t think you should be hauled over burning coals for unlocking the phone, (which I personally can do without looking), holding it up so your head is still facing the road and glancing just to see if it’s important before putting it back down. That’s not so different to looking at the speedometer, something else I can’t stand doing. Compare that, however, to someone texting who I think should get the three points and a heavy fine without question!

But these are precisely the growing pains to which I refer and the starting point which I hope we can address. I do see the difference, of course I do, and I think that’s where people have got me wrong sadly.

I heard a story on this morning’s news which is pertinent here. It was a daughter’s mother in a hospital who had fallen out of bed. When she approached the nurse in charge and told her that this would happen, because of course she knows her mother, she asked the nurse “why didn’t you put the side rails up” and the reply came back - “we haven’t done an assessment”.

I’m hearing the same thing here in effect, that nothing should have been done or introduced until an assessment had been done. That is my point and that is what I have been saying all along and that is all I have been saying. An assessment had been done, by someone. They wouldn’t have introduced the law in the first place if someone or Body ‘in the know’ hadn’t done some kind of assessment. (Notwithstanding some major back-handers behind closed doors).

Now then, I’ve got to check Jom’s links for the next three days to see if it supports my take or not... Ta

It’s been an interesting debate for me and I thank you all for your patience and tolerance of me and my little hissyfit. (Mole was right that I took it to heart, not personally against anyone though ).

I think it would be very remiss of me not to thank the mods and sing their praises that they have given me this space to argue so passionately on a subject ‘seemingly’ at odds with the party line. (I’m sure most other forums would have kicked me off for being so open and it speaks volumes about the integrity and tolerance of this site ). So I think a special thanks is due to Claire, Steve, Peter and Teabelly for allowing me the oportunity and I’m sorry but I don’t know who else to thank who's a mod.

That sounded a bit like as speech after winning a BAFTA award

_________________
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.

...or too light for when the detriment to driving quality is particularly egregious. That is another problem with the specific legislation and its application, it is not proportionate or discriminatory.

You've already alluded to believing that it is unjust to penalise someone who is stationary in traffic to the same degree as someone driving past a school whilst on the phone, but this is also what the new law does. The pre-existing legislation doesn't.

I real fail to see why you think this law is some magic bullet, and in any way superior or necessary in light of what was already in place, beyond it "sending a message", that I posit could have been just as effectively delivered without further legislation. Try doing a search on the amount of new laws passed by the most recent Labour administration compared to all previous governments.



I don't think it wrong for anyone to voice their opinion, any more than it is wrong for me to find it frustrating when the more fervent contributors are unable to grasp the big picture through their fervour.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

See, now I think you are deliberately missing my point to keep me going in a weird war of attrition. As I have said, it does not replace DD or DWDC. It does, however, highlight a specific offence which every driver now knows about and will act as a deterrent in the same way there are specific laws and fines for seatbelt wearing, tyre tread depth.. You, on the other hand, (as has been levelled at you), think one law fits all and there’s no need for specific laws because you can somehow successfully impose them in the current fashion. I’m beginning to sound like a parrot.

I don’t think it’s a magic bullet and didn’t say it was, and you have failed to tell me how the public would have been better served by ‘doing nothing’ except leave it to ‘how things were’ where the majority of drivers would consider that as giving consent to continue to use ignorance as an excuse. Also, “sending a message” is a powerful tool, just like the paper messages we dropped on Germany and now Afganistan telling them they’ve lost. You cannot possibly hope to police the use of HH mobs so this propaganda, (if you want to call it that), is about the only arrow in their quiver.

Right back at ya. Did I open the first door to the Monty Python sketch when I was looking for an argument and got faced by Graham Chapman in the insult room?

Martin Luther King’s speech wouldn’t have been what it was if he’d said in dulcet tones “Pssst.. I had a dream. I’m not sure what to make of it.. I’ve been thinking about my little children lately”

You have your style, allow me to have mine.

_________________
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.

Understood, but I still think it's a bit different. You can still catch measles without being "idiotic". I think I still prefer to look at vaccinations like insurance premiums (or seat belts).

That's all stuff I can't really argue against. You got me there! Yes, I could (and subsequently have) done things differently. That occasion was when hand-helds were still legal and hands free kits cost a year's wages! (ish). By sheer bad luck I'd chosen that day to switch it off altogether, so of course, I didn't know it had rung until I stopped and (pressures of the job & all that!) I wasn't stopping at every service station.


It's ok, I heard you the first (ahem! and subsequent!) times!

However, the two blue quotes do highlight (very nicely, I think!) the inconsistency of this approach? Given your (less than tacit!) opposition to speed limit enforcement and advocation of a degree of personal (informed) choice in the case of the latter?



And here, of course, we have nothing to argue about I can agree with the whole of that. To be honest, they were going to knock it all the way down to a mere 2 points for minor speed infringements and at the same time, a very modest increase up to 6 for more serious ones (see what they did there?! ) and I don't see why the same can't be done with mobile use (or indeed, most offences that attract points). What's more, I think public attitudes and faith in the system would go a long way towards being restored if we had a nice, graduated scale ranging from "good-talking-to", through 1 point and a small fine, 2 points and a larger one et, right up to "shed-loads-of-points-and / or-a-ban". I acknowledge, however, that one small advantage of everyone getting the same as soon as they so much as grab their phone is that you don't get involved about arguments over proportionality ('cause there isn't any)!

Oh I wasn’t aiming that at you Mole, it was a repetition for the opposition who don’t realise the more excuses they make the weaker their argument becomes.

_________________
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.

It may have been levelled at me, but that's not what I think, I honestly didn't think anyone was being serious when they suggested something daft like a naughty offence, though I guess both you and dcb did. My saying that there was already a law in place to prohibit people doing anything while driving which is detrimental to their safe conduct of the driving task is not the same as the suggestion that murder and rape could all be covered by one "do not be bad" law. Suggesting that we need a specific mobile law is more like saying that we cannot just have a "no murder" law, but need laws which state "do not stab someone to death", "do not beat someone to death", "do not shoot someone", "do not strangle someone with a dressing gown cord", etc etc, if you want to use that analogy.

As far as one law fitting all, that is what the specific mobile phone legislation is! They are punishing someone who is stationary in traffic to the same degree as someone who is driving past a school. The law did not repeal DD/DWDC you are correct, but in practice it has effectively replaced them vis-a-vis mobile phone use.



I really do wonder how it is that you're not getting this.

How did you hear about the mobile phone law? Did you pick up Hansard and notice that the vote had been passed, or did you hear about it through the media, like I suspect pretty much everyone else did. Now why does it have to be a new law in order to promulgate this message through the media. Why could the statement not be made that guidelines have been issued by the police to bring charges of DWDC against those caught on mobile phones? COFP could still be used to unload the burden on the courts (even with the new law you can opt for a court appearance, anything else is not justice). The only difference in practical terms is that it would not be a one-size-fits-all, and those who were indeed using their phones safely would have the opportunity to demonstrate this in court, and those whose use had been particularly dangerous could be given a heavier penalty.



I've never denied you your style Tone, you asked me a question and I answered it. You seem to have taken the answer the wrong way. I see a theme.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You have certainly had more than 10 minutes worth!!

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

Oh good, I only paid for five.

I have an answer for Robin. The apprentice may have caught up with the master. He taught me well Just need a while to collect myself; I think I know what he's up to; how he's worked this...

_________________
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.

In fact, it could be argued that each time a new and more specific law is introduced, it's slightly self-defeating in that the more laws you have, the harder it is for the public to remember them all...

...so you introduce more specific laws...


...so you end up with even more laws...


...so the harder it is for people to rememebr them all...


and so on.

I will confess and concede that I don’t know how everyone knows the law on HH mobs Robin. I suspect no-one else does either, but that’s not important - I just know they know. If what you say is true, that it could have been done without this specific law, then I would have been perfectly okay with that.

I hate new laws for the sake of a new law too but it has captured the publics imagination in a way that it didn’t before and by creating this new law you have also got a spin-off whereby other drivers also police it when they see stupid driving and the perpetrator instantly knows to what you’re referring when you let them know. I don’t know how DWDC would be conveyed without that specific law in everyone’s mind in the same way, but never mind...

What sparked this off for me if we go back a few pages was, or is, the notion that research or an assessment needed to be done first and only then should we use any law to clamp down on the bad driving we all see.

I don’t care if it’s an existing law or a new law Robin; I don't care if it's called Donald Duck! I’m not hung up on the HH law, I’m hung up on the denial that it’s going on, the denial that it’s not a problem and the biggest of all – the need for research or an assessment to be carried out before anything is done - and that is what frightened me coming from here!

To date, still no-one has agreed with me on that or how it looks for SS.

No-one from the opposite side, to date, has come out and said a law, new or existing, should try to have curbed this behaviour and it was right to have done something before we have the end result of years of research. Tell me I'm wrong someone?

Something did need to be done and what you have done Robin is shift my basic argument and concerns into a different argument about how the existing laws are sufficient thereby deflecting that which no-one is prepared to come out and say.

I am not going to deny the evidence of my own eyes and experience! Maybe, after all, we have a similar opinion but coming at it from different sides, I don't know. But you are not denying it and nor is anyone else in support of law before research on this.

The closest I have got is from Steve who said something like, "as a compromise look, we’re saddled with it now so let’s just run with it, as is, and see where it takes us". (I hope that’s not a misrepresentation Steve but you can slap me if it is and, as always, I'll apologise to anyone )

This is where it started for me and where I got my arse in my hands...



It’s important to understand this because this is what kicked me into a completely different mindset and surprise of what was to come. What Robin has cleverly done is shift that very important point, my argument and why I backed the law on HH mobs, to ‘there is already a law for that'. There is name for that sort of argument That was not my original concern or argument but that's what you have seize on.

Here’s a bit more from my past..



..



Then there was this one. Notice again how I am not banging on about the law but about the issue of road safety. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24750&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=67

Still with me Robin? I know one of your techniques is to start referencing and cross referencing so it gets confusing, people get bored and the whole thing is a waste of time and effort and they bog off. (Like this one probably now). So I’m doing this for you, for the first time...

But then, and I’m sorry, but this one really confused me and I hope anyone can see why! Okay.. I'm an inexperienced youngster or a 30 year old twat so I'm going to hold it in between my teeth or stick it down my pants next to the general.

Let’s bring it more up to date on page 5 and my answer to Robin. Notice I’m still not even talking about the HH law and everything I'm arguing about is nothing to do with the actual law at this point because that’s not what is bothering me, it is the danger and my concern over the use of a HH while driving.



I put it to you Robin that what you have done is shift or focus my argument, my genuine concerns for road safety and the unwillingness for certain people to say ‘The law was right to be introduced before we had 'enough' research or an assessment” onto a matter of there’s already a law which covers it, instead of my orginal argument and genuine concern for road safety.?

Add: This is not, IMO, an argument between me and Robin; I think it's quite divided so far.

Tone

_________________
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.

Yes Mole, and I swear I composed my last post before I read yours. I too do not like laws for laws sake and for the same reason you have stated.

_________________
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.