Safe Speed Forums

Chap got licence suspended for 56 days and IIRC somewhere in the region of £400-£500 fine.
script emboldened by myself

I agree, in that the dangerous use of mobiles affects 2nd and 3rd party. Seatbelts largely affect the non wearer only. It's hard to draw a relevant comparison, but I suppose if you were to compare these two hypothetical situations

Everyone drives without a seatbelt on
Everyone drives using their mobile all the time.

Then I would agree that the roads would be more dangerous in the second scenario.

Does anyone feel that the danger is more to do with the type of conversation, ie with someone not present in the car, concentration on the necessity to keep the conversation flowing, concentration being diverted to an important subject, perhaps personal or emotional. These are in my mind more significant contributors to risk than the method of use of the phone.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Hell, yes. Virtually all the science (50+ papers) finds that the conversation is the distraction not the process of holding the phone.

But none of the science tried to measure if some people were more at risk than others, and none of the science tried to determine if we could learn to use the phone safely (or more safely) while driving.

I suspect that the real risk comes from visualsing the other party while on the phone. Some (not all people) people do this. I suspect that the process of visualising the other party uses the same part of the brain that we would otherwise use to visualise hazard development.

The government was very wrong to give implied approval to hands free phoning while driving. The hands had absolutely nothing to do with it.

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

I don't see how that conclusion is valid. Driving without a seatbelt cannot make the roads more dangerous in the sense of more accidents. The 'risk homeostasis' theory indicates the opposite (fewer crashes but more severe consequences).



Absolutely. This draws on the "attention capacity" theory. As long as the attention taken for the phone conversation is not taken away from the attention needed for safe driving, there is no additional risk (putting aside the mechanical considerations). The attention needed for safe driving varies naturally and there is no reason why a competent driver, in reasonable conditions, should not be able to reserve the attention needed for the driving task as well as conduct a phone call.

However, I can see some merit in the argument that a driver who has an 'attention deficit' in normal driving (i.e. without phone use) may be more susceptible to an increased attention deficit during a phone call. If there was empirical evidence that a statistically significant proportion of crashes is happening whilst a driver is engaged on a phone call, that might be sufficient to ban their use altogether (if that was possible, which it probably isn't).

Without that evidence, which doesn't seem to exist, I'm not sure there's a problem. If there is a problem, I'd suggest an alternative approach may be to make use of a mobile, at the time of a crash, an aggravating factor or, possibly, prima facie evidence of DWDCA with the burden of proof reversed.

But, as Paul said, the current safety message is "using a mobile while driving is safe if you use a handsfree kit". That's completely bonkers.

I think I might have said it wrong. What I was trying to say was that I think, (without having analysed it very much) that more people would die on our roads each year in scenario 2 than 1. But I could be persuaded otherwise!



Often when I stop drivers who have been using their handheld mobile, the answer is I'm sorry, but it was a really important call!!
What price road safety!!


Couldn't agree more, and use of a mobile whether hands free or not will be considered as a potential aggravating factor in any collision I'm investigating.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

I approve. But the sad fact is that it'll have to be a damn serious accident before you can pull phone records and prove that a hands free phone was in use. Won't it?

Or do they just make admissions?

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

Hands free kit is as safe as talking to a passenger.

These items should be fitted as standard

In the 7 series, i just place my sim card in the dash, and the car takes care of everything else.

In other motor's, i use Blue Tooth head set, which is very good.

It would not be that expensive to install as standard, by the makers.

We are now in the world of everyone being on demand by the mobile phone. Car safety spec should recognise this position, and fit the equipment as standard.

_________________
Steve

I think that's entirely reasonable.

I imagine that you only have to 'investigate' more serious RTCs. Can I ask a few questions.

What is the threshold of seriousness of an RTC for prosecution to be considered?

Do you think there's a case for bringing DWDCA prosecutions for minor RTCs?

If yes, how often is it possible (in multi car collisions) to identify the 'at fault' driver?

Are drivers involved in minor RTCs more susceptible to becoming involved in a serious RTC?

Do you see where I'm going with this. I think it's perverse that a minor RTC can be dismissed as " a bit of bad luck". That's possible but, I'd suggest, rarely the case. It seems to me almost self-evident that any RTC will have a DWDCA element by one of the drivers involved (or THE driver if single vehicle). Isn't a RTC, even minor, an event which really deserves prosecution?

But that is not 'safe' if it is takes away attention from the driving task and leaves insufficient for the driving task.

Oodles of science (and my personal experience) says that's quite quite wrong.

There are all sorts of subtle brain and thought processes going on to support the task of driving. In some individuals (at least) there's a clash between the tasks of driving and the tasks of conducting a telephone conversation. These effects are not present (for whatever reason) when talking to a passenger.

I do know for sure that some drivers are more or less unaffected by conducting a telephone conversation, but equally some are badly affected. I know this later part for sure, because I'm one of them. However I have used the phone since the law changed (:!:) and I seem to be getting much better at it.

Yes folks, the law affected me in the opposite from intended direction.

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

Edit - to actuially write something! not sure what happened there - the quote appeared with nothing else!

Anyway - I echo every word Paul has put above, almost literally. I have put elsewhere my occasional habit of shaving in the car. This involves much more use of one hand than making/receiving a call on a non-hands-free phone. I am 100% confident that this has never had any detrimental effect on road safety.

I have occasionally fielded telephone calls in the car, both pre-hands-free and, more recently, hands-free. Virttually without exception it has distracted my driving to various degrees. The effects of these distracts have ranged from nothing to missing turnings through late braking having not appreciated something happening. I do not believe the severity of my distraction or the consequences are mitigated one jot by the hands-free install. In fact, I now regard hands-free kits as another unfortunate paradox. They are intended to make things safer, but in fact they likjely have a paradoxical effect. Becasuse it is so much easier to make a hands-free call than a "normal" call, one is more likely to do it - or stay conjnected longer, and the danger is therefore potentiated rather than mitigated.

Of course, once the technologists (which are as likely or more to include psychietrists as/than engineers in this case) work out what is causing the distract and render it far less bad (by whatever means excluding telephone elimination), the hands-free kit will comer in to its own. Right now it should IMHO be banned, or at least discouraged! Why? So that we can see if people are on the phone in their vehicles and take appropriate defensive action (hang back, pass another car to leave the phone-tail behind - whatever).

OK, so if this is the case we should not talk to our passengers or listen to highly involving radio.

I use my mobile regulary while driving, hands free, and so far I have rarely detected a drop in my concentration level. On the odd occassion where the conversation has genuinely required serious attention I pull over and give the call 100% of my attention.

Unfortunately some people continue to drive and end up either in an accident or causing one.

Let's take this to another level.

Some people cannot handle high speed so let's remove the ability to speed and eveyone will be OK.

It's the same crappy argument that's used against speeding, let's take it down to the lowest level and make everyone safe.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

The problem is, there is absolutely no way for you to know this for certain. The fact you think your concentration levels don't drop, doesn't mean it's so. Sorry.

Hi Lawman1965 and welcome.

Not read through this whole thread yet ...



Unfortunately - the opposite appears to be happening in LanCASH£re ... their figures have increased and speed is not the problem in Blackpool anyway ... according to a colleague and pal in A&E over there - all incoming wounded were bladdered and walked into anything on wheels - cars, trams, bikes..... Lancs is a particularly good exampel: more scams there than anywhere else - and they also have a good and laudable initiative - Speed Course for one minor blip in three year period. There was one big problem: they set an absolute zero tolerance and people were being invited for silly overspeeds such as 33/34mph! In other words - the wrong target. After a lot of protest - my wife and one of her cousins joined an "army" of local folk in keeping up a weekly cat fight with them Result? The Lancs prats did have the guts to revise their policy a little - and "in repsonse to public concerns" they extended the range across all speed limits and increased the invite cut off to 10% plus 4 - and 10% plus 2 would receive a warning letter.



I am sure you do. I had the unpleasant experience myself once. The police officer who came to tell me that my wife had been involved in a serious accident was a rock at the time. (It was not her fault - victim of a driver who was taken fatally ill behind the wheel of his car and his foot felll on the accelerator. She survived an 80mph hit - just! - and she is still around ... posts on the PH site and sharpens her claws on BiBs ) She was stationary in a queue of traffic at the time - in front of a police car on the hard shoulder. He was also extremely efficient at getting the emergency services to her and he actually managed to keep her fairly comfortable until help arrived. One of the reasons why we want trafpols and not scameras!

My own job involves me giving bad news on an hourly basis. Have one patient whose relatives want someone to die so that he can receive their heart and lungs (virus attacked the heart muscle - his only chance is a transplant...)



I would want country lanes to be part of the driving test in any case. But the emphasis should be on constant training and encouraging people to understand that the real learning curve begins the day the examiner tells you he is pleased to say "you passed!" A bit like medical studies really ... qualifying is just the first hurdle...you have to keep up with developments and new treatments continuously.



P>O>W>E>R! Always make sure my wheels are OK before any intended m/way blast. And we lost one member of this family when an artic smashed through a central reserve. Our guy died on the spot. Impact speed was 20 mph. Depends what hits you and where as well.

Freak occurrence - how often do they happen?



In Lancs - they were prosecuting at 34mph last year. Not heard of anyone getting NiPped at this since the revised policy was published....but the scams are set at the point where a vehicle will pick up speed. This may be so gradual that the driver may not "feel" it either.

Gradients, cambers, crowns of roads, surface... they all have an effect as well.

And as for the fight against other crimes.....only conviction rate which is increasing is that of speeding.....Do not hear of many burglars getting copped at all...all too frequently people are just issued with a crime number over the telephone for insurance purposes.... and no officer is despatched to look for evidence at the scene of the crime which may lead to the criminal's capture....

I understand what and why you say that but if you read my post I said "rarely". I can and do monitor my concentration levels. Those who talk without thinking of the task at hand are not likely to realise that their concentration is wandering. I conscientiously ensure my concentration is on the road. I often have to get the caller to repeat something because the driving is more important than listening. It is only when I detect that the caller needs some dedicated time and my concentration on them that I pull over.

Ask some of my passengers and they'll tell you I never listen to them in the car, especially my wife who is with me most often, because I am concentrating on the road, not them.

I may be a rare animal, but I do NOT allow listening and talking to interfere with driving.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Nah, this is all wrong or a misunderstanding.

Firstly, there's plenty of science and my own experience to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there's something uniquely distracting or debilitating about using the phone and driving for some drivers. No one is saying that all drivers are so affected.

None of the science, nor my own experience indicated that holding the phone had anything at all to do with the dangerous distractions. It's not about where the hands are - it's about where the brain is at.

In the UK up until last year it was perfectly possible to prosecute anyone visibly affected by the phone for careless driving. Such prosecutions were quite common. They only affected those drivers who were debilitated.

Last year we passed a law that made it illegal to use a hand held phone while driving. This sent the false message that using a hands free phone was safe.

Safe Speed opposed this law on the grounds that you can read on this page:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/phone.html

Since that page was last updated, the theory that the problems experienced by some are related to a visualisation process has emerged.

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

Actually I do not need to ... as I am driving slowly there anyway. Lot of people milling around at chucking out time....

Don't get me started on mobiles.....!

Intrusive, irritating and the epitome of selfish and rude behaviour. The next time some numpty has one of the useless little conversations whilst I am smooching with my wife on the back seat at the cinema - you will be seeing my photo in the StUN as I will have been arrested for ramming up his A*******E!

Fact is the UK has the lowest death rate in Europe, and in the "mobilised" world alltogether, since at least 30 years. But do you guys have any idea why? That would interest me a lot.
(Unfortunately since 1998 - 2000 you do not seem to make any progress anymore. Did something change in the UK since then?)

As far as Germany is concerned: I think you did misinterprete the chart. The chart is only about people killed on motorways. On motorways the dead rate in the UK is half the dead rate of Germany, but note that the dead rate in the US is higher than the German.

On overall dead rate (in 2002) and based on the IRTAD data, the UK was at 6.1 people killed per 100.000 inhabitants and Germany at 8.3, or one third higher.

I believe that the "fatality rate per billion vehicle km" is the most important road safety indicator. On that figure we overtook Sweden in 1979/1980, so not quite 30 years.

I'm certain that I know the golden factor that gave us the safest roads in the world. We are the only country that's had a long term influence from a centre of driving excellence. See this page:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/roadsafety.html



The deviation from the earlier trend stared in 1993. From 1993 to 2002 our fatality rate improvement slowed progressively. In 2003 it rose - the first real rise (as opposed to a short term blip) in the history of motoring.

Also in about 1993 we turned our back on our "centre of driving excellence" and began instead to infest the roads with speed cameras.

See:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/smeed.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr132.html



Yes. But car ownership and car usage are slightly higher in Germany and this "devalues" that figure.

On present fatality rate trends Germany will overtake us in 2007.

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

You seem to have made the same extrapolation as I did.

Germany made incredible improvement over the last 30 years. In 1972 they suffered 31.5 people killed per 100.000 inhabitants. The Uk then was at 13.6. And they keep on improving at a rate of -7.5% per year since 1992 (the reunion), every year. And still no National Speed Limit at the Autobahn.