Safe Speed Forums

i doubt if any one will, i dont know if you around at the time Mr tone, but Paul once said that the compulsory wearing of seat belts was dangerous, if memory serves me right a scenario of a car rolling into a river and the occupants drowning because they could not release the belt was mentioned, he was a bit of a laughing stock for that comment




i would say its down to advancement in technology, 15 yrs back phones were the size of bricks, we all see HH mobile phone use everyday, white van man , under 30s are the main culprit, i have personaly seen one of my daughters friends driving with the phone on her knee, she replied to a text message without even looking at the phone ,

and who is the main tool used for capturing these offences http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/more_than_70_motorists_caught_using_mobile_phones_in_norfolk_crackdown_1_895893



Norfolk appears to be following others
http://www.kmscp.org/News/press-releases/safety-camera-vans-now-enforcing-mobile-phone-and-seat-belt-offences.aspx

http://www.kmscp.org/News/general-news/as-more-drivers-admit-to-using-mobile-phone-at-the-wheel-kent-police-warn-you-will-get-caught.aspx

_________________
now retired

Well, that's better than I thought. At least you didn't say she replied to a text without looking at the ROAD!

Aside from the length of time it must have taken, is there much difference between that and tuning the radio?

Maybe she should have got herself a walkie talkie or a CB - then everyone would have been fine because she wouldn't have been breaking the law! And while Tone's going on about unanswered questions, that's been one of mine all through this thread. We're all very quick to jump on people who use hand held mobiles, but we don't seem so bothered about other hand-held forms of commuincation!

probably not, i think we should all agree there are different levels of using a HH



so is it back to the police being allowed to exceed the speed limit as well as using their radio, and we cannot but for the record

speed - officers responding to calls can only respond at a level suited to their driving grade, their vehicle etc, the calls are graded by the control room staff to whichever level is deemed necessary (with or without B&2's)

radio - dual crewed vehicles, passengers replys / takes the radio broadcast, single crewed vehicle single finger transmit mode or the radio is paired with the vehicle and transmissions are made via a send button on the gear stick, brief update or status code

_________________
now retired

Maybe I can put this one to bed, about comparing it to speed and my apparent contradiction, while I still have the will to post on this thread, (just).

It is different to speeding because, as I have said, it is a political football. Once again, the cars have become safer, they stop quicker with ABS on most now, they have air bags and are designed to crumble upon impact, they are nimble and make the handling of an Morris Marina or Ford Escort feel like a shopping trolley. The roads are far safer with better engineering and lighting.

But what has happened? Despite all of this they have lowered the limits to absurd levels to catch more people who have never once had a conviction in their entire life!

Now the argument and difference between speeding and HH mobile phones.

It is not vitally urgent that you take the call right there and then, you can use a hands-free if you think it is, you can pull over somewhere safely to look at it, holding it to your head acts like a blinker or blind spot, (just like an air freshener or the stupid wide side-pieces of my spectacles which I need to change ASAP). It defies the laws of physics, biology and common sense to think that having your arm held up clasping something is actually going to improve your reaction time and concentration on the job of driving.

I want you all to please indulge me if you will now and try something as you sit at the pc by holding your arm up as though using a HH phone. Don't worry, no-one is watching you or you can ask them to leave the room.

Can you see how your peripheral vision is restricted? Try it with each arm, up and down, up and then down – before and after. Unless you‘ve got tunnel vision, in which case you shouldn’t be driving, or you are deliberately sticking your arm out through an imaginary window you will see exactly what the difference is and how it blinkers you. Correct? Now here’s the rub..

That could be the car you don’t see in the left or right hand lane or the cyclist or biker coming up the inside or outside - couldn’t it??? Tell me I’m wrong!

I absolutely cannot believe the way this thread has gone and the pressure on me to make such obvious points. (But we need research before anything was done? ) We need a smilie which shows me fainting. Unbelievable, truly unbelievable...

Does the official SS ethos countenance creating blind spots? Yes or no?

_________________
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.

A post that sums up "intelligent road safety" as defined by the whining scribes here.

We want proper road policing with real traffic officers so we can get a lecture and words of advice rather than a penalty "cos I never crashed this time officer". Let's face it, you like traffic officers because it is perceived that there is a negotiable risk of penalty rather than one that is allocated. Maybe that's what you get when you take corporal punishment out of schools for a generation!

It makes no sense that you suggest that errant behaviour will be curbed by one method, traffic officers, but not by other means. Why is it sensible at all to suggest any particular enforcement method will correct your behaviour and you will respond to that when another method will not and is not acceptable. Why not just correct the errant behaviour without the threat of penalty or a police officer handing you some flowers?

It should be realised that police have been directed to do better things and the routine can be handled elsewhere. I predict a large scale traffic operation isn't about to return to the police portfolio even though I do think it useful.

Yesterday I needed to search my computer for a file I had misplaced.

I noticed that although I could continue to work, the search function was eating up processor resources - and everything slowed down.

I believe that mobile phone use does the same - the use of the phone takes up attention that should be devoted to the road.
Texting while not looking at the phone must take up more attention than is wise?

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

Me too Ernest and if only on peripheral vision grounds alone, as I said in my last post, I think it would be hypocritical to be in favour of safe driving, and safe driving initiatives, yet defend HH use.

I wouldn’t have minded so much if the argument back at me was coming from the side of ‘we too think it’s a dangerous activity but let’s research it’ as opposed to ‘well it needs research and until we have enough evidence and data we should have kept things as they were’.

Sorry but that just doesn’t work for me. Not on this one, not this time, and I think that position not only doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, it’s untenable for all the reasons I've stated in this thread.

_________________
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.

Absolutely! But unfortunately, that's one of the many shortcomings of the curent enforcement and punishment system - lots of different levels of transgression, only ONE level of punishment.



Not just coppers, taxi drivers, CB users (not that there are so many of them these days). You actually see Top Gear presenters with walkie talkies in their laps driving along and talking to each other. They're basically just taking the pi55 out of what is essentially some very poorly and hastily drafted legislation.

I think you're wanting to have your cake and eat it there Tone! If you're going to use the argument that it's not "essential" to take the call there and then on a hand-held (which, of ocurse, it isn't if you have a hands-free), I'm going to say that it isn't "essential" to exceed the speed limit!

If you're going to say that cars are much safer (which they are). I'm going to say that the cars themselves are no less safe whether your using a hand-held phone in one or not.

If you're going to say that speed limits only get exceeded because they are absurdly low (and in many cases, I do, of course, agree wholeheartedly with that!), I'm going to say that not being able to hold a phone, but being able to hold a walkie-talkie is absurd too.

(Just for the record, I don't necessarily hold all of the above views myself, I'm just putting the other side of the argument for the sake of debate)!


Tone, did you buy your mobile in 1989? You can get much smaller ones these days, you know! I've just tried your experiment with mine (and for the record, my computer didn't crash, so it MUST be safe!) but I can't see it at all! I don't know about you, but my ears are on the SIDES fo my head! My phone is about the size of two small boxes of matches one on top of the other. If I look to the side as far as I can, I can see the rim of my glasses, then a bit of the wing, and then I can JUST about see one of my knuckles holding the phone. If I hold it slightly differently, I can't see anything there at all! Maybe my eyes are just too close together? (well, you'd expect a certain criminal visage of someone who admits to heinous crimes like exceeding the speed limit on occasions, I suppose)!

I don't think it works like that in real life though. (One of the areas I'd like to see further researched). I don't believe that we always use 100% of our attention for driving. I therefore don't believe that the "resources" being used to manage the mobile necessarily come out of the "resources" that we have allocated to driving. I do believe, however, that they COULD, on occasions overlap. If, for example, something crops up either in the drive or in the conversation that suddenly demads a lot more of your attention, that's when it all starts to go pear-shaped. However, that would be true whether the phone was hand-held or hands-free, so the only sensible argument would be to ban ALL mobile phone use when driving.

Well, that's your opinion anyway! Whether or not that's the real motive for wanting more real traffic officers with real discretion is (or at least should be!) still opne to debate. Of course, if you've already made up your mind...


And yet, you can't deny that doing it the first way gave us the safest roads in the world and broader public respect for enforcement, so maybe we were doing SOMETHING right?


Yes, I realise that. In fact I further predict that as the recession bites harder, we'll try to do even more policing "on the cheap" and we'll ultimately pay the price for doing so.

It is not JUST mobile phones:



http://www.doeni.gov.uk/roadsafety/index/faqs/faqs-mobilephones.htm

And the reason the legislation is specific, as opposed to using DD or DWDC, is because if prosecuted under either DD or DWDC the prosecutors would have to prove dangerous driving. IE: that using the device had lowered the attention to driving so much that the driving became dangerous to other road users. Specific legislation obviates the need for proof.

Oh:



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/27/norfolk_prestidigitator/

_________________
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

Bloke drives with knees while manipulating two mobes

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

But was he doing it safely?

_________________
"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

So, if we take Mr TwoPhones then, does Robin think that this practice is OK as the police only pulled him because they could see he was holding a handset to his ear and not for driving erratically?

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

I’ve been waiting for something like this and I know it’s the only way to tackle me to try and defeat my argument. That’s why I brought that one up for discussion Mole.

But first, a word of advice. Be careful how you proceed with this line of argument, you might not do the campaign’s stance on speeding much good if you put speeding in the same league as mobile phone use.

Okay then, gloves off again. (I’m going to have to buy a new pair at the end of this)

Speeding is necessary and even on the advanced test you are expected to ‘get a wriggle on’ when overtaking. Every time I overtake I do so with alacrity and add anything from 10 to 30mph to do it safely, maybe more if it’s a HGV, before pulling back in down to the limit. If at that point I get done for speeding then I’m screwed. (The growing pains I keep referring to of the speeding issue which the Gov still hasn’t got right and bleeding drivers dry). Fair so far? Or do we all overtake and half way through the manoeuvre we check to see if we’re exceeding the limit and then remain safely at that speed until the manoeuvre is over? This is why, or one of the reasons why, I agree with “show me a person who tells you they never exceed a speed limit and I’ll show you a liar or a menace”.

I could go on and give example after example, but if I really need to do that then I joined the wrong forum back in 2007 and everything we have ever posted on that matter amounts to nothing, and SS may as well stand for Slow Speed.

But that’s just not a true statement Mole. They are less safe if you are using a HH. I think a 40 ton HGV isn’t going to be destroyed in a collision if it ploughs into the back of stationary traffic at 30mph because the driving was using his HH instead of concentrating on the road. I do think the driver will get out unharmed most likely than not and the drivers in the cars in front will most certainly not be so fortunate. Still think he should be able to use that HH mob?

I quite agree, I have never said otherwise. One slight difference though. At least you don’t need to hold it up to your ear.

Okay, I’ll be gentle with this one cuz you made me laugh with your eyes. You know I have a vivid imagination.

I have a HTC Desire HD with a case where it flips open to see the screen so it actually becomes twice as big when I’m using it; a bit like something else I know. Let’s pretend I’ve got one the size of yours, the mob. It’s my arm which I can see as much as the mob which, as I said, IS blinkering me! Anyone who has done any amount of high mileage will have been in a situation like this many times:

I have been on the motorway right by the side of another car and the driver is sat there with his arm up on the phone completely oblivious to me. I am by the side of him now and I could be waving a red flag at him or trying to gesticulate that his tyre’s flat – he’s absolutely clueless that I’m there! Seen it more times than I care to remember – he is blinkered! Maybe my eyes are on the side of my head, I’ll have to look, but I can see part of the mob and my arm even if I go to extremes – which no-one ever does of course! Maybe you can minimise it but you are restricting your peripheral vision and THAT is a big no-no and AFAIK is also regarded as such by SS - unless someone would like to correct me?

_________________
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.

Using a mobile telephone makes the task of driving more difficult and will make it more likely that the driver would not be able to avoid a collision when compared to not using the telephone.

The task of driving is not always rendered "dangerous" as defined in section 1 of the Road Traffic Act or "careless and inconsiderate" as defined in section 2 of the same Act when using the telephone.

This is why the specific legislation regarding mobile telephone use in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 section 110 Mobile Telephones was introduced.

While it was possible to use RTA section 1 or 2 the use of these sections needed qualification of the circumstances; the new Act does not need such qualification and quite simply the legislation, if adhered to by a driver prevents the situations in RTA sections 1 and 2 being exacerbated by mobile telephone use.

What the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 section 110 Mobile Telephones legislation doesn't do is prevent drivers using a communications device/mobile telephone while driving dangerously from being prosecuted for a RTA section 1 or 2 offence.

In short, legislation and penalties exist to deal with mobile telephone use in a sensible proportionate way; if you are caught using the same device and it causes you to drive dangerously you will be prosecuted for driving dangerously should that use warrant such.

Driving and doing something else at the same time can never be less dangerous than just driving. At least I have pondered how and come up with no situations yet that disprove that.

Another person on the same page as me on this. Thank you and nicely worded.

_________________
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.

You should have gone on to read the small print in that link! Yes it includes "...anything that "is or must be held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function"...

...EXCEPT a 2 way radio!

it would also seem that 2-way radios are not, therefore something that "...performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data."

in case anyone was wondering!


Yes I could see how having to prove that somethign was dangerous before penalising someone for doing it might be "inconvenient". - Especially if the people doing the penalising were using such a device (but by another name) themselves during the course of pursuing the miscreant!

Understood. And I DO think there are SOME differences between the two actions. However, this cuts both ways doesn't it? The approach I'm arguing for would add consistency to the campaign's stance on speeding, whereas the approach you're advocating does not!

NOTE!!!!! Ithink that both myself AND Tone would happily agree that NEITHER of us speaks for the campaign. Certainly My views are not necessarily those of the SafeSpeed organisation etc etc yadda yadda!


Oh no ya don't!!!

"I had to exceed the speed limit, officer, because I was overtaking"...

...since when did that work as a defence?! (especially against a scamera)? Now the VERY IMPORTANT thing to understand here, is that I AGREE with you - overtaking should be decisive and you should spend as little time on the wrong side of the road as possible, and I am absolutely NOT against exceeding the speed limit if that is the safest way to complete the manoeuvre. There was a time when that would be recognised by the authorities too - but thats not (alas!) the motoring world in which we live today. HOWEVER, getting back to this argument, the official line would simply be that if you have to exceed the speed limit, you shouldn't attempt the overtaking manoeuvre in the first place. I don't agree with that, you don't agree with that, but this is the absolute world of "exceeding the speed limit = dangerous" and "using a hand held mobile = dangerous".



I think it IS a true statement because the car itself would be no more or less safe than when it left the factory. You say that cars have got safer (which they have, of course), but we're talking about drivers here. I would defend the HGV driver's right to use his mobile PROVIDED it did not create a situation where he was going to plough into the back of the queue of cars. I assume YOU would defend the HGV driver's right to exceed the speed limit provided it did not create a situation where he was going to plough into the back of the queue of cars?
(Noting again, of course, that NEITHER of us would advocate the use of a hand-held-mobile in the first place, the only difference is that I don't think the blanket ban is a particularly useful or consistent approach).


No, it's worse than that, you need to hold them up to your MOUTH! (and they're generally bigger than mobile phones)!



I can of course, if I TRY hard enough, find a way of holding my phone so that I obscure my vision. I absolutey agree that some people seem to do this too and, of course, it's not a good idea. However, by creating the absolute offence, none of these subtleties matter - you're either using one or you're not. and the way you use it makes not one jot of difference. (bit like speeding really, either you are or you aren't)! I think Cam-Op summed it up well when he said that there are different levels of using a hand-held. I think everyone would accept that. All we need now is the legsilative framework to recognise that and we'll be sorted!

Sigh! I find myself in the bizarre position of now arguing in favour of things that I wouldn't want to do myself, and that I don't especially want anyone else to do! That, I freely admit, gives me a bit of a problem! I certainly do NOT want the law repealed overnight. I DO definitely want more research so that the real effects of using one can be thoroughly understood and then I THINK (but am not sure) that I'd like to see the law modifying to recognise the different "levels" of transgression. Above all, I think I want consistency. If using a HH mobile is always dangerous, there can be no argument (that I can see) which makes using a HH 2 way radio "safe". If there IS a difference, let's investigate it! If it's the conversation itself rather than holding an object that causes the problem (as I think it probably is in some circumstances), then let's again be consistent and band hands-free too!