Safe Speed Forums

It's (b) AND (c) I think. Both conditions would need to be satisfied. That would give the lawyers something to fight over! I guess it would be for situations where (say) a lone female motorist was being pursued by a would-be attacker or something like that.

Were accident rates increasing in line with increase in vehicle HH phone use before the ban?

Have accident rates decreased in line with decrease in vehicle use of HH phones since the ban?

If the answer to either of the above is no, considering HH phone use is pretty much proven to cause significant distraction, what on earth is going on!?

I'd suspect that if accident rates were decreasing very significanty since the ban it would have been pretty big news in the media, I can't find any such reports. I can however find reports that say there has been no significant change in accident rates, though not in this country.

How is it possible that decrease in HH use while driving does not apparently necessarily result in fewer accidents?

What is the point of the ban if it is having no discernable effect on accident rates?

There is another problem, just because something is illegal does not mean a significant number of people won't continue doing it ... look at prohibition in the USA, and drugs as examples. It is IMO a seriously bad idea to inject heroin into your veins for fun, it is a horrendously bad idea to inject heroin of unknown origin when you have no idea of what it actually is or the proportion of active ingredient, but some folks still do it. Illegal drug supply is one of the biggest industries worldwide despite being pretty much illegal worldwide, with stiff penalties for supply or possession.

I believe vehicle HH phones use is banned in a lot (if not most) of countries, but I think a very significant number of people in all those contries continue to do it anyway.



The situation currently as I see it is something like this ....

We have a law banning use of HH phones while driving. Punishment for transgressors is the same no matter what the circumstances.

We have not done much follow up research to see if the law is actually resulting in real world safer roads.

Research which has been done and lack of media reports to the contrany, would SUGGEST there has been little significant attributable change in accident rates.

We have encouraged drivers to install hands free kits and suggested they are safe and require no special attention when there is good evidence they can cause very significant disrtaction, and we really have little idea if they actually are very safe to use in the real world.

A significant number of drivers will ignore the ban anyway, I don't see that changing.



I can't say I support the HH law in it's current form, I can't see that it is actually resulting in safer roads, I'm really not at all sure encouraging the use of hands free kits and suggesting they are a safe alternative is actually that great an idea.

Note to Tone >>> I know this is a subject close to your heart, I am in no way trying to condone or excuse any behaviour which is liable to cause distraction while driving, I would just like to try to get a bit nearer to the truth of what I feel is a very complex problem.

_________________
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)

For sure Zippo, so would I.

But the driving licence is also a licence to potentially kill someone, just like a gun. So responsible drivers should have respect for their driving just as you would a gun, and not point either in anyone’s 'face'.

I stopped using a HH before the ban because, (I like to think), I am a responsible driver. I could do many things in the car which are not illegal but they still constitute bad driving practice. Anything which takes your eyes away from the road effectively means you are driving blind, hence my argument about necessary verses unnecessary.

Anyway, I’ll leave it at that as I’m sure I’m on nearly everyone’s foe list by now. I’ve put my case forward and it either made sense to others or it didn’t, I don’t care anymore and I'm sure people are as sick of hearing me bang-on about it as I am writing it.

Sorry for any offence given to anyone but when I argue I do so with gusto, it's a personality trait... I hope no-one has taken my ranting personally, I still love everyone.

_________________
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.

I've been asking myself the same question in the past few months.
Seriously: What has this site achieved since its inception ?
We still have speed cameras, in fact we now have more and better speed cameras.
I'm sure I forecast that they would morph eventually, which they have.
We now have not only speed cameras, but averaging speed cameras which also provide anpr data and provide static surveillance at the same time. Shortly we shall see the roll-out, nationally, of comprehensive systems providing all the above but in a local scenario.....and unless you have forgotten, road pricing, which has not gone away but has continued to move forward (albeit at a slower pace....under the watchful eye of that well-known-fully-non-democratic institution the EU) I said yonks ago that installing a data system along the roads by the highways agency that provided a data capacity to rival BT's fibre-optic trunk system was for a reason.
But then, even other debates have no effect, on other subjects.
The press is largely in the government pocket via its owners.
The media (especially the BBC) is unfit for purpose.
Our elected personages are unfit for the purpose of representing us, being more concerned at preventing us from knowing what they do when they are "working".
In fact, our "elected" government does not even "govern" us, we are governed by unelected and unacountable faceless european bureaucrats (some of who used to be British)
Indeed, I shall have to consider whether any such debates are worthwhile at all: Anywhere.

_________________
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

Sounds a bit close to the Illuminati heading us all towards a New World Order and the Government are complicit in 'False Flag Operations' to deceive us all when it’s really part of their cunning plan.

You might be onto something there Jom, it’s a possibility..

(I realise I put a few words into your mouth there )

P.S. Soz Mods, seperate topic - again.

_________________
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.

My earlier post I feel got a bit lost when this thread was split so I am repeating it (entirely) here (posted originally 5th June) :
The official Safe Speed stance has not been to 'oppose' the ban on HH. I have stated that more research is required to fully understand this whole area. Whilst distraction is a clear issue we do need to thoroughly understand conversation behaviours.
The forums are separate to the website and discussions on the forums are not that of the official word or opinion of the Safe Speed Campaign, the aim being to ensure that there is a platform available to openly and frankly discuss all issues.

As I have already suggested in the on-going thread far more research is required to fully understand 'conversation' and conversing while operating a vehicle, and all other aspects.
Informed opinions are only achievable with good thorough research.
I suspect that the current ban on HH use is a 'quick' reaction, in an attempt to see if that 'solves' the problem, but I would need to research this to be sure that was their intention.
Distraction when driving is not to be encouraged, and I think the ban on HH was hoped people would turn to HF devices, but IMHO that has not been as widespread, as they had perhaps hoped. Enough regulation (inc any & all enforcement) is only required to achieve the desired effect e.g. less accidents to people and property.
Those regulation/ enforcement or policy changes must be necessary, proportionate and appropriate. All policy changes need to be based upon sound engineering and good research, clearly showing that a problem exists (in the first place), and that the solution/s proposed is fully justified with the enforcement process clear.
One of the main issues that has arisen from this debate, is that when control of a vehicle is impaired through distraction, this is covered by existing policy and enforcement, making additional regulations (Laws) potentially un-necessary: 'for other interests from road safety objectives'.
Partly indicated by the lack of encouragement to improve behaviours, and the 'prosecution by use', alone. Also when incidents occur the information gathered to show precise 'phone use' data will be most telling. Looking thoroughly into the psychology of conversation and communication would be most helpful.
Once full research is available it may show that all mobile use is unacceptable, or perfectly feasible under certain circumstances, that certain people 'types' should or should not use HH or HF (etc.) and all the other possibilities!

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

The reporting of accidents is very limited in 'causes', and only those accidents where there is significant reason to investigate have the full treatment and full study that can be used to help diagnose the root cause and resulting incident events. So we never know for sure what all the detail accident causes stem from as most are never scientifically investigated so people at the scene are consulted and attending officers attempt basic decisions. I can understand that there is simply not the funding to do this. It troubles me that wrong conclusions might be drawn when other reasons are never considered or even ignored.
I agree that it is a complex issue in that little is really understood which leaves the 'blanket ban' a hope that things will get better than knowledge that it will.
The motorists choice as to when to act is very significant for safety. For examples as you approach a bend is not the time to use the washwipe function, as smearing a windscreen just before there is an imminent need for the best vision possible. After the bend and during a clear safe straight road is a good place. When those decisions make us safe and are essential to car operation, how many other activities should be allowed or do we leave it to individuals to responsibly choose what they can do and when it is safe ? (And in a safe manner !).

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

We seem to be back at some earlier points here. When the mobile rings, it is not the driver's choice of timing and how many of us can ignore a ringing phone? The phone call is not "essential to car operation" as you describe.

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

The law existing pre-handheld-device law, was inadequate. It still is. It requires proof that not only was the driver distracted by the use of said device, but also that the driver was using same at the time of the accident.
Problem solved, the use of a handheld device requiring sufficient input is now illegal.
There is no way to frame a law that [for instance] makes the use of a device legal by a female and illegal by a male, or illegal by a person with an iq of 10 and legal by a person with an iq of 150 (ignoring the possibility that an iq10 person may well be better anyway)
So it isn't going to happen.
I would also like to point out that the government has limited scope for laws anyway, since EU directives take precedence.

_________________
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 managed to ignore it 4 times between Birmingham and Cumbria yesterday - it wasn't hard!

Hmmm....


Sorry Jom, what "problem" has been "solved"? Is it the problem of accidents caused by people using HH mobiles or is it the problem of the police actually having to show that someone was causing a danger?
In any case, I feel that your choice of words is still pretty disingenuous! How about:

"...the use of certain types of handheld device (but not others) requiring sufficient input is now illegal."?

I don't feel that the existing law was inadequate to be honest. I believe that it made enforcement more difficult, that's all. It's much easier to prosecute anybody exceeding a particular speed, regardless of danger caused. It's easier to prosecute anyone who crosses a line by a red traffic light, regardless of the reason for doing so or any actual danger caused. It's easier to prosecute anyone seen talking to a hand-held "thing" (cough!- other than a hand-held "thing" with a curly bit of wire dangling from it ) regardless of whether or not it is causing danger. It's easier to prosecute someone with a blood alcohol content exceeding a particular value too....and so on.

I think the Yanks have got it right here. More focus on evaluation of how much the driving ability is impaired rather than an arbitrary numerical value (sound familiar?) At present, we use the American approach for drug-driving enforcement because there aren't reliable and simple tests for whether or not a particular numerical value has been exceeded. If such tests were to be introduced, would anyone like to take a guess as to whether drug-driving accidents will reduce in proportion to the increase in drug-driving convictions?

Now all you have to do is turn it off...

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

I use another system - I don't tell anyone my mobile number

_________________
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

Makes no difference to me, I still get some goof from India asking “how are you today sir?”

Oh well, it’s nice to know Eric Singh cares I suppose...

_________________
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.

I find a fun way to deal with these calls if I've nothing better to do is to say something like "Hewo Ho Fung Chinese takeaway westewant, can I take youa order?" ... Ignore anything the caller says and repeat as necessary till they go away!

Anyway .. back on topic (ish)

An incident happened a few week back which has got me thinking ... ok ok that's a novelty! Was driving along the A82 between Tarbet and Crianlarich, narrow winding bit of road with little overtaking potential. I caught up with a tanker pretty quickly and knowing there is nowhere to overtake it for a fair while settled in behind with a good gap, it is a road I know well and I also know that the tanker is liable to stop suddenly without warning half way round a corner if it meets another vehicle coming the other way. Another car catches up and takes up a position behind me which I would describe as an "overtaking position", close but not close enough I feel particularly threatened, but I do drop a bit further back from the tanker to make some extra space "just in case".

There are a couple of spots where it is possible to overtake a single car safely if conditions are right and you are on the ball, but the car behind makes no attempt to do so and nowhere does it make any moves that would indicate overtaking intention, it would appear that this is the guy's standard no overtaking intention following distance ... I know it was a guy as I got a real good close look at him in the mirror later on!

Suddenly without warning ... but predictably because of the nature of the road ... the tanker did an very quick stop half way round a corner when it met another large vehicle coming the other way, locked its trailer wheels. I had plenty of room to stop, there was no panic for me and I braked appropriately ... until I glanced in the mirror ... the guy behind didn't seem to be slowing at all, the gap between us was now quite small and closing fast, I released the brakes, flashed the brake lights a couple of times, now he got it and did an emergency stop, I was then able to brake again though much more firmly than initially anticipated! Had I stopped in the same distance as the tanker, the guy behind me would have run into me, no question about it.

I have no idea if distraction was the cause of the guy not noticing that the traffic in front had stopped, but no matter, the point is he was already IMO driving right at the limit of possibility merely by his choice of following distance. It is possible to follow at that distance safely but you really have to be right on the ball with all feelers out to do it, and there is absolutely no room for any distraction whatsoever, constant full concentration is required. He had already put himself, either by choice or bad judgement, in a position where there was very little room for error or dealing with the unexpected, but was not keeping up the required degree of awareness to be able to do so safely, an accident all set up and waiting to happen, just needed introduction of one more factor, and ... bang!

I recon it is the most common driving mistake I see, following unneccessarily close to the vehicle in front, it is quite common for me to see queues of vehicles travelling very close together with little room for error or dealing with the unexpected. I'd put money on (and I'm a Scotsman!) that some of those people are not keeping up the required level of concentration or are fiddling with "stuff" causing distraction, without making any allowances at all e.g. at minimum dropping well back from the vehicle in front.

Apart for the obvious nutters .... folk ploughing into stationary traffic while watching pawrn or something on a laptop etc. could it be that the root of the majority of accidents involving distraction is in already being in a potentially dangerous situation, and not taking steps to correct this before biting into that cheese roll ... or indeed answering that phone call?

Anyway I've ranted on for long enough .. time for some light entertainment

_________________
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)

This was my point exactly, the choice is ours to ignore whatever it is that might cause a distraction, to only choose to answer when it is appropriate (& IMHO hands free). In the same way when the call is going to be or might be 'involved' pulling over to take the call to enable concentration on it is essential.

Zippo the scenario you point out (& I know the A82 very well too ! ) is exactly what is going wrong with road safety, people are making bad risk management decisions and there is extremely little public advice or guidance.

Jomukuk - have you all the direct links to all of the research that you listed please? At first glance, little suggests 'conversation research' which I would like to see. When I have seen some Uni simulator examples they do not reflect 'real life' situations satisfactorily enough IMHO.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.