Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Oct 27, 2025 00:53

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 08:58 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Absolutely! Far from "preventing the event in the first place", this ill-conceived and stupid law has FACILITATD it! It sends out the message that "using a mobile is OK as long as you're not touching it". And I wouldn't mind betting that MORE people have been using mobiles on the move since it was introduced, now that the authorities have "sanctioned" it under particular circumstances, because most people believe that "the authorities know best". :roll:

Some people are more able to do it than others and some situations allow it to happen in more safety than others.

I won't bother expanding the concept to cover speed limit enforcement... :roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 09:01 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
weepej wrote:
Charging people after the event is all well and good, but helping to prevent the event in the first place is better is it not?


Sorry, but if you'll permit me a cheap jibe - I thought you were talking about cameras there for a minute! :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
I really think we need to get sense of proportion here.

Millions of people "Talk and Drive" every day! Hundreds of millions every year!

And yet accidents of this sort are so rare that EACH ONE becomes a newsworthy event deserving of national coverage.

As has been said earlier, there is likly to be more to this than simply inattention due to talking on the phone but blaming it on "Talking and driving" means that these other factors will be officially ignored.

I suspect that "Govenor mist" is likly to be a key factor and a far more significant one that talking on the phone. Large trucks ploughing into the back of staitionary or slow moving traffic are common events. Though I have never seen actuall collisions myself I have many many times seen trucks smoking their tyres because the drivers only twigged at the last moment that they were gaining on the traffic ahead faster than they realised.

But this is going to be ignored cos, of course, it was talking on the phone what caused it wasnt it!

And trucks will continue to plough into stationary traffic.

And everything will be OK because the government will release Rapsts, child molesters and murderors from prison in order to make room for the guilty drivers involved!

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 17:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Mole wrote:
Absolutely! Far from "preventing the event in the first place", this ill-conceived and stupid law has FACILITATD it! It sends out the message that "using a mobile is OK as long as you're not touching it".


Well, without it people could "convince" themselves that they were driving sensibly when using a mobile phone, I think the law makes it clear that you mustn't at all.

People that are against this law strike me as people who would like to use a mobile phone whilst they drive becuase they think they can do it safely, and take offence that this option has been closed to them. It's a classic case of "I'm a safe driver me, it's everybody else that's rubbish".

Mole wrote:
And I wouldn't mind betting that MORE people have been using mobiles on the move since it was introduced


Well, that probably would've happened anyway, it's a growth behaviour, and what with mobile phones shops selling clip on earpieces and telling people that this makes it legal we'll probably get more and more.


Last edited by weepej on Sun Jun 29, 2008 17:47, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 17:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Dusty wrote:
And yet accidents of this sort are so rare that EACH ONE becomes a newsworthy event deserving of national coverage.



Accident? The guy went into the back of a van without braking whilst being distracted by a mobile phone conversation and who knows what else, that's no accident, that's carelessness; a terrible deriliction of duty and responsibility.

In the meantime somebody who is dead played no part whatsoever in their demise which is possibly the unfairest way to go.

Yes this is rare, but I'd like to see it made more rare myself, could happen to me one day if it's not stamped on and all that.

If somebody wants to drive round a race track with big obstacles on whilst talking on a phone and 'accidentally' crash into one of them and KSI themselves that's fine by me, but when we're on public road we owe each other a very high standard of driving, and this guy didn't attain it IMO.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 17:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Mole wrote:
weepej wrote:
Charging people after the event is all well and good, but helping to prevent the event in the first place is better is it not?


Sorry, but if you'll permit me a cheap jibe - I thought you were talking about cameras there for a minute! :)


Cameras are highly advertised, signs everywhere, not that they need to be as speed limit signs should be enough.

If you speed through a camera, well, seriously, you were warned.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 19:35 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 17:46
Posts: 823
Location: Saltburn, N. Yorks
Quote:
Millions of people "Talk and Drive" every day!


.......and have millions of near-misses every day......... :oops1:

(You are a 'phoner-driver', aren't you?) :roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 22:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Oscar wrote:
Quote:
Millions of people "Talk and Drive" every day!


.......and have millions of near-misses every day......... :oops1:

(You are a 'phoner-driver', aren't you?) :roll:


Yup, I reckon if we treated near misses as if they were crashes and analysed them as much I think a lot of people would be changing their minds about mobile phone use.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:21 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
I use my hands free mobile in the car and it doesn't impair my driving.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 13:16 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
civil engineer wrote:
I use my hands free mobile in the car and it doesn't impair my driving.


Would that be because you use it in an appropriate way and don't have long indepth coversations whilst driving through town?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 19:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
civil engineer wrote:
I use my hands free mobile in the car and it doesn't impair my driving.


Yes it does, unless you're the passenger, or you're parked up.

( or this is your car)

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:14 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 01:42
Posts: 686
I really don't like this whole situation where the Law says it's OK to do something, but if you have an accident while doing it, the punishment is more severe than if you had an accident while not doing it (regardless of whether or not a causal link is proved between the activity and the accident)

If hands-free phone use is so lethal, then they should ban it. That way, my employer would not expect me to use one. The way things are, I am forced to use something which could get me locked up if I have an unavoidable collision. This makes me feel very uneasy.

I get their argument that only a careless driver would end up ramming the back of a traffic queue at that high a speed, but I'm afraid the only message I've got from this conviciton is that if your vehicle causes a fatal collision, the authorities will look for any excuse to prove culpability.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:34 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
I tend to use the mobile when I'm on long motorway journeys and the calls can be quite long and involved.

Can someone please explain whats wrong with that?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:39 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
civil engineer wrote:
I tend to use the mobile when I'm on long motorway journeys and the calls can be quite long and involved.

Can someone please explain whats wrong with that?


IMO nothing, so long as you're still capable of keeping enough attention on the road.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:10 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 17:46
Posts: 823
Location: Saltburn, N. Yorks
Quote:
I tend to use the mobile when I'm on long motorway journeys and the calls can be quite long and involved.


Yet if you were seen eating an apple you'd be persecuted? I know which is far more dangerous. :reaper:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 14:44 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 21:15
Posts: 699
Location: Belfast
weepej wrote:
madroaduser wrote:
but I can't belive a mobile phone conversation can distract you so much that you don't even attempt to brake for a stationary vehicle.



I can.

When we're asked to recall things or construct visual representations we may have our eyes open, but something else is going on. People can be so deep in thought sometimes that when you snap them out of it it's like waking somebody up; "you were miles away" is quite a common expression.

I think this guy was "miles away" when he ploughed into the back of the van.


:gatso2: I will side with Weepej on this one. I was out driving on the Shore Road, Jordanstown last Easter Sunday. I had to stop at some traffic lights while driving on the nearside lane. The lights changed to green and I was geared up to set off when a pedestrian ambles across the crossing, talking away on his mobile, totally oblivious to everything else. The driver of a black VW Golf beside me gave the idiot a good blast on the horn. Did it wake him up? Did it 'ell! Me, under my breath, I just doubted the idiot's parentage.

Whie out shopping in Belfast, I've often witnessed occasions when someone is so engossed in talking on a mobile, they cross roads without paying attention to oncoming traffic. I've seen at least five near misses when bus drivers have to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting pedestrian mobile phone users.

But am I asking for pedestrians to be banned from using mobile phones? No, because it would be a ridiculous piece of legsislation and totally unenforceable

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
No need to repeat myself.
weepej wrote:
I wasn't too against phone use whilst driving, as long as it was handsfree, but I must say this story has changed my mind.
I personally, am against inattentive driving.
What blows my mind, is that DWoDC&A doesn't cover this in its entirety.

Whether you are on a phone while driving or not
Quote:
plough[ing] straight in to the back of a Transit van without even trying to brake
is overwhelming evidence of:

atrocious observation
pathetic risk detection
unforgiveable risk measurement
reckless risk management
and nonexistent car control

The focus on the phonecall itself, IMHO, is symptomatic of the very same condition that this colossally inept driver obscenely displayed:
Failure / inability to direct observation and attention toward what is fundamentally important, and away from what isn't.

Many drivers failed at this daily without cellphones, and still do. The problem will just become less obvious if the phones are made to go away somehow - you'll still be able to spot them, but they won't all have the same pose - but the root problem remains ... the nut behind the wheel needs better quality control, and more periodic adjustments.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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 : 0.028s | 10 Queries | GZIP : Off ]