Safe Speed Forums

Have not had time to read the WHOLE thread, but...

My take is this:

I think this is mainly a concentration rather than control issue. There is no doubt that lack of concentration is a killer when driving. It is however, impossible to legislation against all factors contributing to a lack of concentration ("driving whilst needing a pee" for example). But it IS possible to legislate against some - USING a handheld mobile for example - I personally suspect that the combination of holding the phone AND talking to a third party is more distracting than one or the other, but I also suspect that talking on a phone is more distracting than "normal" conversation with a passenger (because the former means the context - and possibly the mind - is elsewhere).

Having nearly been wiped out a few times by drivers who were both on the phone AND "away with the fairies", my gut feeling is to support a ban, but I agree a blanket ban leads to situations which are not dangerous becoming illegal too. So - in conclusion - not sure

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

Off topic posts have been split off into this thread.

That is in the nature of a blanket ban, really. There are many things on the roads that are outlawed because they are sometimes dangerous, even if often they aren't. Neither the phone user or an observer has any means of telling whether, at any given time, using a phone is or isn't potentially dangerous. Also, given that a legal alternative is easily and cheaply available, nobody can reasonably argue that the handheld ban represents any meaningful detriment to them.

_________________
"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

In that case do you think that an outright ban is socially acceptable and beneficial to public safety?

There are few situations that demand that telephone calls are made on the move so no need to be making them.

Why do we see people making calls to say that they have just got off the train or some such trivial event? Why is it that people need to document their every move on a minute-by-minute basis?

The situations that are accepted as necessary to need calls while driving or in control of a vehicle have been allowed in the legislation.

Don't know why people make calls. I'm sure it's for lots of different reasons, some of which, I guess, will be trivial. However, the law clearly only feels that people making "trivial" calls on mobile phones is unacceptable. It doesn't seem to think that using a CB, or having a walkie talkie sat in my lap, ready to pick up and talk on, is unacceptable. Why is that, I wonder?

I'm afraid I can't support the outright ban on hand-held mobiles with the law as inconsistent as it is. Either the practice of holding something in your hand in order to communicate with someone is dangerous, or its not...

HOWEVER, I acknowledge that there are alternatives and am happy to use them.

Your argument can be abstracted thus.

Because action A which results in the death of X people per year is legal there is no justification for banning action B which results in the deaths of 100*X people per year.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I don't think your precis of Mole's argument is correct. He is saying (and please correct me if I am wrong) that it is simply illogical to ban handheld mobile phones while allowing handheld walkie talkies and CB microphones to be used as they are functionally the same thing. His argument is nothing to do with the number in use.

Is your argument that CB and WT are used in such small numbers that there is no point in banning them? However, it would make sense to ban them as if the police see anyone with a phone-like object in their hand then they would be justified in a "pull". What do the rozzers do? Pull someone over and then say "OK sir, I see you have a walkie talkie. On your way."

I think that WT/CB were specifically excluded so that the emergency services would not have to be re-equipped at huge cost.

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

In a way it is. The number in use is important. If - and this speculation - for whatever reason there are no or very few accidents being caused by the use of WT/CB but a large number of accidents being caused by the use of hand held mobile phones then it is not illogical to ban the one and the other.


I don't. It would have been possible to frame the legislation so that trained operators in the emergency services were except from the ban

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Idon't think it would be wise to go down the: "a small number of people can do it and seem not to have a problem" argument. Who knows where that might lead?!

I'm sure the real reason was to try and exempt people who have been using hand-held mobile communications devices for years (not just emergency services but taxis and truckers) and have never had (it seems) a problem. But that's part of my beef, to be honest. The legislators said "lots of people have been involved in accidents when using HH mobile phones, let's ban them" When it might have been better to say "how come certain other groups using HH comms don't seem to have that problem? Oh, we need to research that and pass on the knowledge gained"!

Forgetting for a moment the issue of whether it is advisable to use HH phone while driving or not .....

For me the real question, now the ban is in force and has been for many years, is something like this .....

Can it be reasonably shown that the ban has had any positive effects on accident rates?

I suspect that the problem is MUCH more complicated than it looks, and HH phone use is only a small part of it.

_________________
You only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape. :0)

Therein hangs some of the tale I suspect. As I said earlier, my suspicion is that talking on the phone is much bigger distraction that talking to a (normal) passenger because the conversation is "situated" outside the vehicle in the mind of the driver. I doubt that holding the phone is that major a contributory factor (although in the UK - because most people are right-handed and hold the phone in their right hand, they ARE frequently obscuring their side vision from the vehicle - I know I've had phone talkers pull out into my lane). BUT one attribute of holding a phone that IS important is that it is easier for an enforcement officer to spot! (Spotting if someone is talking on a hands-free phone whilst driving as opposed to talking to a passenger, or even themselves isn't easy!)

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

Interesting posts Zippo. I had long suspected that there must be more to it than meets the eye. That looks like the basis for just the sort of research I'd like to see more of. I have long suspected that the content of the conversation has a lot to do with the level of danger (hand-free or not). There are short, simple "low level" conversations like "when do you think you'll be home"? and there are much more demanding conversations. Maybe that's why hand-held radios for taxi drivers don't show up in the stats? (assuming the don't!) Maybe it's because they tend not to have deep and meningful conversations on them? Who knows! It's all stuff that needs looking into. In the same way as when some government department comes out with a pithy sound-bite generalisation like "speed kills" and those sufficiently enlightened start questioning it, only to find "it's not that simple". I feel that the current "hand-held phones kill" mentality is similarly over-simplistic.

I would basically agree with you Mole, it does seem odd that apparently little of that kind of research has or is being done. I feel that 7 odd years after the legislation there seems to be little know about its actual effects in the real world. The stuff I have found indicates that the ban has had little if any affect on actual accident rates, in the USA at least.

It is entitely possible that the current legislation has made the situation worse than if nothing had been done at all! I'm not saying that is the case, just saying it is possible, I cannot find any research which indicates otherwise, feel free to point me in the right direction if you know there is some.

_________________
You only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape. :0)

But would it make any difference anyway ?
Clearly, some may be unable to hold both a phone and a conversation and drive at the same time without serious risk.
Others may be able to do all three.
At the moment all are acting in contravention of law.
How you would verse the law to separate those capable from those incapable is the problem.
And whether any such law would stand in court is dubious.
At the moment using a handheld mobile phone is illegal, I expect a case could also be made that using a handheld walkie-talkie is also illegal if it was so desired. The same for other handheld devices, to which the law applies as it is not specific to mobile phones.....holding your satnav whilst driving would be in contravention of the same law.
Holding a microphone and talking is not illegal under the "mobile phone laws", but is not legal if it causes you to drive badly or dangerously.
Never forgetting the trucker who wiped-out a family while operating [allegedly] a laptop....
A lot of criticism here of the law, but not a lot of construction of any other possible law ?
Not for nothing does the driving test place importance on "both hands on"

_________________
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

Clearly then, we need to investigate why these (and other anomalies) exist!


I agree - I don't see any attempt to address this issue though!



Where do you get that notion from? The C&U regulation covering it is HIGHLY specific to mobiles - even quoting specific frequency bands!


Which, I think, is the point Robin was making earlier on. We DO already have a law that makes such activities illegal IF they case a danger.

And yet, no law banning laptop use whilst driving

not read any updates as yet, but i just travelled over 250miles with the phone stuck to my right year, no accidents no distractions

_________________
now retired

But the offence would have to be PROVEN in court. Now it doesn't because the use of a mobile phone by a person driving a motor vehicle on a public highway is a specific offence.





In any case, the truck driver was prosecuted for dangerous driving with alternative charges of causing the deaths by careless driving.
No point in doing him for anything else....and the vast majority of people would agree that operating a laptop while driving is a step too far.
And the debate is pointless because the law is not going to be revoked or amended, as I said...it may even be made more strict.

_________________
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

Well that was my take too; unless I missed something? I continue to repeat: -

Just because there aren’t any specific laws for other in-car distractions doesn’t mean they make good driving practice.

So to try and straw-man my argument with.. “well what about radios, what about walkie talkies, CB’s, manually operated sunroofs etc.” doesn’t actually matter one jot because it is still nonetheless bad driving practice no matter how anyone attempts to sugar-coat it!

If I was to run into someone or smash my car up having an illegal conversation on a HH phone or performing a legal ‘fiddling with the CD to find the right track’ I would still nonetheless have had an entirely preventable accident - would I not? The only difference is the former can be traced to the incident whereas the later would not.

So to advocate the use of HH phones while driving, or not outwardly condemning the practice, (WHEN THERE IS A SAFE AND LEGAL ALTERNATIVE), is not something I would have expected to ever hear from any place trying to promote safer driving.

In fact on ethical grounds it’s an indefensible contradiction and I’m sorry some people can’t or won’t see that for 'whatever' reason. I continue to find the opposition and criticism to this, my simple argument, quite astonishing...

_________________
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.

..and that's a GOOD thing?!

Next, you'll be saying that regardless of whether or not the action of exceeding the speed limit is causing any danger to any road user, we're better off just prosecuting everyone caught exceeding it!



I'm sure you've posted a link to this before! The problem is that this is NOT legislation, (and it is very misleading)! If it's the bit I think it is, you need to read a few paragraphs further on (where they start to list all the various exceptions). Anyway, for the avoidance of doubt, here is Construction & USe Regulation 110:


110. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using–
(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in Paragraph (4).

(2) No person shall cause or permit any other person to drive a motor vehicle on a road while
that other person is using–
(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in Paragraph (4).

(3) No person shall supervise a holder of a provisional licence if the person supervising is
using–
(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in Paragraph (4), at a time when the provisional licence holder is driving a motor vehicle on a road.

(4) A device referred to in Paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

(5) A person does not contravene a provision of this regulation if, at the time of the alleged
contravention–
(a) he is using the telephone or other device to call the police, fire, ambulance or other emergency service on 112 or 999;
(b) he is acting in response to a genuine emergency; and
(c) it is unsafe or impracticable for him to cease driving in order to make the call (or, in the case of an alleged contravention of Paragraph (3)(b), for the provisional licence holder to cease driving while the call was being made).

(6) For the purposes of this regulation–
(a) a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;
(b) a person supervises the holder of a provisional licence if he does so pursuant to a condition imposed on that licence holder prescribed under Section 97(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (grant of provisional licence);
(c) "interactive communication function" includes the following:
(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv) providing access to the internet;
(d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is designed or adapted–
(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages; and
(ii) to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and
(e) "wireless telegraphy" has the same meaning as in Section 19(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.





If that's the case (and I agree it probably is), there are lots of "pointless" debates on this (and, indeed, most) forums. That doesn't mean to say we can't or shouldn't debate it though! I'm curious as to why you choose to come on here and contribute to such "pointless" debates?

Surely that permits the use of a hand held on a Motorway since we are frequently told that it is both unsafe and illegal to stop on the hard shoulder. Or on any Clearway

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown