Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Oct 29, 2026 01:54

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 08:08 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Daily Telegraph
Quote:
Drivers are ignoring law on use of mobiles
Drivers are ignoring law on use of mobiles
By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 04/10/2006)

More drivers are using hand-held mobile phones at the wheel than when the practice was banned in December 2003, according to Government figures.

The latest statistics, from a study commissioned by the Department for Transport, show that the number of motorists flouting the law has risen by more than 50 per cent in the past 18 months.

According to the study, carried out by TRL, formerly the Transport Research Laboratory, 1.7 per cent of motorists – equivalent to more than half a million drivers – are making calls on hand-held phones while at the wheel every day.

This figure could be an underestimate, TRL admitted, because its observers were not always able to tell if a driver was using a mobile.

In all, 80,000 car drivers and a further 20,000 van and lorry drivers were monitored at 30 different sites, from motorways and city high streets to the quietest rural lanes. The study was carried out during the week and at the weekend.

It showed a steady rise in motorists using hand-held mobiles while driving from 1.1 per cent of those observed in September 2004 to 1.7 per cent in April this year.

At the same time the proportion of drivers bothering to use hands-free sets has fallen from 1.4 per cent to 0.8 per cent.

While the percentage of van drivers using hand-held mobiles fell from 2.8 per cent in September last year to 2.5 per cent in April, the proportion of lorry drivers increased from 1.6 per cent to 2.5 per cent during the same period.

The figures will cause concern within the Government, emerging a matter of days after the Department for Transport's own statistics showed that driver inattention was six times more likely to cause an accident than breaking the speed limit.

Using a handheld mobile phone has been illegal since December 2003, with motorists facing a £30 fine if caught doing so. Initially the law appeared to work as a deterrent, but the latest figures suggest that this is no longer the case.

"There seem to be two reasons for this," said Sheila Rainger, the campaigns manager for the RAC Foundation. "There are tests which show that holding a mobile does slow reaction times, but people think it is just like talking to a passenger.

"The other problem is lack of enforcement, people think they can get away with it."


direct line wrote:
Direct Line employed the services of an independent research team who observed the driving behaviour of 11,000 motorists in 10 cities across the UK over two weeks.

Widespread mobile phone usage was also spotted by the Direct Line researchers, with five per cent of motorists, regularly ignoring the law and continuing to drive whilst talking or texting on their phones.


TRL wrote:
According to the study, carried out by TRL, formerly the Transport Research Laboratory, 1.7 per cent of motorists – equivalent to more than half a million drivers – are making calls on hand-held phones while at the wheel every day.

In all, 80,000 car drivers and a further 20,000 van and lorry drivers were monitored at 30 different sites, from motorways and city high streets to the quietest rural lanes. The study was carried out during the week and at the weekend.


Direct Line.

11,000 motorist in 10 cities in two weeks - 5% phoning or texting.

TRL

80,000 cars and a further 20,000 vans in 30 cites in one week - motorways, cities and lanes – 1.7% phoning

Is it me or does something not add up?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 09:17 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
I wonder if there is a link between mobile phone use and dumbing down?

As speed limits drop I increasingly find myself distracted by non-driving matters (even on the bike). This never used to happen when I wasn't concentrating on my speedo so much.

I think people are more inclinded to use the phone in dense traffic than on a fast motorway (so the Direct line figures may be reasonable).

TBH it is a problem, but I never supported the ban as it actually made it a less serious offence.

Previously the police could do them for failing to be in control. But the police said it was a problem if the driver was not demonstrating signs of not being in control. Personally if a driver is in control and on the phone I don't have a problem with that and niether should they.

I suspect we'll CCTV cameras adapted with ANPR to create a phone camera


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 09:42 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
People won't comply with laws that don't make natural sense to THEM without enforcement. If the average person, the type you may find on the clapham omnibus when he's avoiding the congestion charge, thinks that given the conditions it is safe to use his mobile phone whilst driving then he will.

Of course many people have very poor judgement and may use their phone at an innappropriate moment.

So what is the answer? mobile phone CCTV APNR? or.....scrapping all such specific offences, get more policing and education on the road and use the dagerous/careless/DWDCAA laws that already exist?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 01:46 
Offline
Police Officer
Police Officer

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 22:37
Posts: 279
Location: Warrington
Mobile phones are here and are here to stay, taking a mobile phone off some of these drivers would be like either taking there car off them or cutting there legs off them.

Since the new legislation came into force I have seen more and more people on the phone than ever. I hate it as it is one of the most dangerous distractions within a car whilst driving.

You see it on the motorway daily big powerful shiny reps car in the middle lane doing about 50mph, you pass it at 70mph there on the phone. A bit further up the road check your mirror and next thing theyre practically turning you over they come past you that fast.

Reason they have regained there concentration levels back that allow them to drive faster aas there brains cant cope with doing two things at once, it's a fact.

So, when they bring out the new legislation shortly and the new penalty for mobile use will be a fine and points, then there will be a lot of unhappy people being arrested for public order when you try and give them points on there licence for it.
Stephen


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 06:47 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
I have to agree with you. It is often the most expensive cars that have the phone stuck to thier ear.

I do have a problem with hands free sets. They are bloody awful! You buy a set for one phone and it won't connect with others from the same manufacturer. Blutooth is just as unreliable. The goverment need to make a bluetooth standard that works and is built in to the car and easily upgradeable.some sort of iso socket to the power in car entertainment.

Employers are not helping. I work for a footsie 100 company who wont pay for handsfree kits in vans but will for managers :loco: Yet they ring the engineers up all day hasseling them about jobs and "have you done your safety training" & send text messages reminders on almost everything.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 08:57 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
So the driver of the 'big shiny car' is slowing down to compensate when he's on the phone thus recognising that he may be limiting his capacity to drive at high speed and therefore acting responsibly?

That is what you were getting at isn't it?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 09:21 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 17:46
Posts: 823
Location: Saltburn, N. Yorks
civil engineer wrote:
So the driver of the 'big shiny car' is slowing down to compensate when he's on the phone thus recognising that he may be limiting his capacity to drive at high speed and therefore acting responsibly?

That is what you were getting at isn't it?


No, I think the point is they don't REALISE they've slowed down. Stephen's right, driving and 'phoning is lethal.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:04 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
[/quote="Oscar]Stephen's right, driving and 'phoning is lethal.[/quote]

I also vehemently dislike people using a mobile while driving but ... where is the evidence for your claim?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Oscar wrote:
Stephen's right, driving and 'phoning is lethal.


There's precious little evidence in the accident stats. For example the recent contributory factors report showed 0 in all categories.

I do think we KNOW that mobile phone CONVERSATIONS badly affect SOME drivers. But mobile phone use is very widespread and there don't seem to be anywhere near enough mobile phone crashes.

Perhaps the compensatory behaviour described by Stephen and highlighted by civil engineer is sufficient in most cases?

Or perhaps we are learning to cope with phoning and driving. Ironically the mobile phone law and the demands of my road safety work have pushed me into using the phone much more at the wheel in the last couple of years (yes, hands free and legal, for what that's worth) and I do believe I've got the hang of it.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
Oscar wrote:
civil engineer wrote:
So the driver of the 'big shiny car' is slowing down to compensate when he's on the phone thus recognising that he may be limiting his capacity to drive at high speed and therefore acting responsibly?

That is what you were getting at isn't it?


No, I think the point is they don't REALISE they've slowed down. Stephen's right, driving and 'phoning is lethal.


[ :twisted: ]

And yet, in the recently released govmnt stats on road fatalities accedents involving moby use were basically zero (Or below statistical significance) This, despite tha fact that Millions of people must talk and drive every day!

Sounds like a case of "This is *Obviously* dangerous! It must be made illegal" (Where have we heard that one before ? :wink: )

Oh! And while I am in DA mode, how about drinking and driving! Figures quoted elsewhere sugest that 2% of all journeys are made by drivers over the limit 1:50! that must be getting on for somewhere between a qurter and half a Billion journeys a year! yet *only* 5% of fatalities ( http://www.metro.co.uk/home/article.htm ... _page_id=1 )!! Not very dangerous is it really!

In fact all you can say statistically speaking is that it was dangerous for the drivers who had the accedents (who are almost always doing something else dangerous aswell such as excessive speed I mean I ask you when was the last time that you read a report along the lines of "Jones was driving home at 25 MPH when he suddenly lost controll and ploughed into a bus shelter full of Nuns, he was later found to be over the limit" This basically doesnt happen!)

[ / :twisted: ]

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:14 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
So assuming you 'know' what they are thinking these drivers are acting subconciously and are therefore instinctively safe.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Dusty wrote:
[ :twisted: ]
[...]
Oh! And while I am in DA mode, how about drinking and driving! Figures quoted elsewhere sugest that 2% of all journeys are made by drivers over the limit 1:50! that must be getting on for somewhere between a qurter and half a Billion journeys a year! yet *only* 5% of fatalities ( http://www.metro.co.uk/home/article.htm ... _page_id=1 )!! Not very dangerous is it really!
[...]
[ / :twisted: ]


At least the prevalence of the drunk driver contributory factor (5% of injury crashes; 9% of fatal crashes) is greater than the prevalence of drunks in the traffic. So drunk driving is over-represented in the crash stats.

Contrast that with 'speeding' - 5% of injury crashes; 12% of fatal crashes - yet according to DfT 60% of drivers are speeding at sample sites on most road types. So speeding appears to be massively under-represented in the crash stats.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:44 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
The distinction I would make between speeding/phone use/sandwich eating etc and drunken/drugged driving is that you exercise some sort of judgement when doing any of the former whereas the latter can be proven without doubt to impair your judgement.

I still don't think the rep in the shiny car example is a great example though. Weaving all over the road I could accept.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:48 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
SafeSpeed wrote:
Dusty wrote:
[ :twisted: ]
[...]
Oh! And while I am in DA mode, how about drinking and driving! Figures quoted elsewhere sugest that 2% of all journeys are made by drivers over the limit 1:50! that must be getting on for somewhere between a qurter and half a Billion journeys a year! yet *only* 5% of fatalities ( http://www.metro.co.uk/home/article.htm ... _page_id=1 )!! Not very dangerous is it really!
[...]
[ / :twisted: ]


At least the prevalence of the drunk driver contributory factor (5% of injury crashes; 9% of fatal crashes) is greater than the prevalence of drunks in the traffic. So drunk driving is over-represented in the crash stats.

Contrast that with 'speeding' - 5% of injury crashes; 12% of fatal crashes - yet according to DfT 60% of drivers are speeding at sample sites on most road types. So speeding appears to be massively under-represented in the crash stats.


[ :twisted: ]

True But

n x [a small number] is still a [small number] even if it is larger than another [small number]

The *raw* probability of a DD causing a fatality is likly to be somewhere around 1:1,000,000 (or less based on these figures.) If *I* was to refuse to, say, employ somebody who is HIV positive because I was fearfull that there was a "1:1,000,000" chance of catching it from normal contact (Touching same paperwork etc) I would be accused of being an ignorant bigot and would find myself in front of an employment tribunal before I could say "Compensation"!

In fact it is worse than this. Accedents while DD-ing are not a crude statistical issue (Like, say, radioactive decay) The Human factor is , by far, the most important ingrediant. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of DD's actually drive more carefully when they have had a few (Something I believe the police (used) to look for, rather unfairly I might add) It is only a tiny minority who become wreckless and go on to have serious accedents.

Like I said, the stats dont show it is dangerous for "Everybody" just for those that had the accedents!

[/ :twisted: ]

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:10 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 21:06
Posts: 80
possible reason that mobile phone usage is up, those lovely yellow backed boxes that do the safety job... since when has a camera triggered by speed been able to see someone crawling past at 10mph on the ophone or writing a text? swap the camera for a police car and people may actually fear getting caught and comply


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 19:19 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
I'm not sure about the whole mobile phone thing. I think it is something you can learn to do. Personally I tried talking on the phone while driving (girlfriend called, I couldn't ignore her!) and I found I was doing about 20mph where I would normally have been getting on for 40. Hands-free I'm fine with. I won't cross the road while talking on the phone, that's too scary. But I'm sure if I practiced I could get better at doing it.

When I was in Florida it could have been law that anyone who didn't have a passenger in their car had to have a phone stuck to their ear. People with passengers only seemed to hold the steering wheel with one hand anyway. You'd see people talking on the phone while filling up with petrol too.

So I think different people handle it differently.

As for drink driving if I were to drink the legal limit I would probably crash as I am not used to alcahol. However if you were to get Father Jack Hacket to cut down to the legal limit he could probably handle a car perfectly well. :lol:

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 20:10 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
SafeSpeed wrote:
Oscar wrote:
Stephen's right, driving and 'phoning is lethal.


There's precious little evidence in the accident stats. For example the recent contributory factors report showed 0 in all categories.

I do think we KNOW that mobile phone CONVERSATIONS badly affect SOME drivers. But mobile phone use is very widespread and there don't seem to be anywhere near enough mobile phone crashes.


I'm not so sure, we don't how many non-injury collisions are caused by mobile use (they may be more common given the "use when going slow" syndrome). Also it is fairly easy for the use of a phone to be "covered up" in all but the most serious accidents?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 22:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
prof beard wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Oscar wrote:
Stephen's right, driving and 'phoning is lethal.


There's precious little evidence in the accident stats. For example the recent contributory factors report showed 0 in all categories.

I do think we KNOW that mobile phone CONVERSATIONS badly affect SOME drivers. But mobile phone use is very widespread and there don't seem to be anywhere near enough mobile phone crashes.


I'm not so sure, we don't how many non-injury collisions are caused by mobile use (they may be more common given the "use when going slow" syndrome). Also it is fairly easy for the use of a phone to be "covered up" in all but the most serious accidents?


I wasn't trying to draw a conclusion. There IS precious little evidence in the crash stats. There must be a reason - but we don't know what it is. Here are the main possibilities:

- most mobile phone crashes are little ones.
- drivers are better when using the phone than the science suggests, probably because they risk compensate or because they learn to cope.
- there are lots of mobile phone crashes, but they don't get recorded
- the science is wrong and the mobile phone isn't as bad as we think.

I'd place my bet on all of the above with the following split:

- 20%
- 60%
- 10%
- 10%

Have I left anything out?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 20:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 17:20
Posts: 258
dave the nutter wrote:
possible reason that mobile phone usage is up, those lovely yellow backed boxes that do the safety job... since when has a camera triggered by speed been able to see someone crawling past at 10mph on the ophone or writing a text? swap the camera for a police car and people may actually fear getting caught and comply


i am sure i read somewhere that driving using a mobile will in the future be picked by the camera vans


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 18:03 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 17:46
Posts: 823
Location: Saltburn, N. Yorks
Yesterday, sat in queue at traffic lights, can only go straight ahead or turn right. I was behind a 4x4, so could not see the vehicle at the front. Lights go green, no-one moves. Several large gaps in oncoming traffic, but still no movement. When lights changed back, lead vehicle turns right leaving us to face another red.

Guess what? Right-turning mini-bus driver had mobile phone clagged to his lughole! :hoppingmad:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.025s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]