Safe Speed Forums

PR451: Mobile phone driving

news: for immediate release

As the government 'ups the stakes' in mobile phone driving, Safe Speed
questions the wisdom of the plans.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "We need road safety policy based on facts. Our
new national system of road crash contributory factors says that mobile phone
driving isn't a large factor in injury crashes."

"Once again a Department for Transport road safety policy will take resources
away from real sources of danger on our roads. I don't believe that they have
the first clue about what they are doing. The new law will criminalise tens of
thousands, but it won't save a single life."

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

Recently written royalty free mobile phone driving article:

Mobile Phone Driving - myth and reality

By Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign.

With a new law launching shortly drivers will be told, once again, that driving
while using a hand held mobile phone is dangerous, but, by implication, driving
using a hands free phone is acceptable.

>From 27th February the offence of using a hand-held mobile phone while driving
will carry a £60 fine and three penalty points. The idea that it is dangerous
to use a hand held mobile while driving is passing from legislation into our
safety culture. But is it true, are we really working with the right
information, and most importantly will it save lives?

We have all seen drivers on the phone dithering and wavering around the roads.
It's obvious that mobile phone driving is dangerous so we must do what we can
to stamp it out. Or perhaps it's not quite so clear. I'm sick and tired of
seeing road safety reduced to sound bite backed with fixed penalties and
automated processing. What do we REALLY know about mobile phone driving?

There are lots of scientific papers about using mobile phones and driving. And
they virtually all find the same thing: Using a mobile phone can be extremely
distracting to drivers. But they find equal distraction from hand held and from
hands-free equipment. According to the science the problems experienced by
drivers have nothing to do with holding the phone and everything to do with the
mental effects of the conversation.

There are some very important questions that the science has yet to answer:

- Can we learn to drive safely while using a mobile phone? (Either hand held or
hands free.)
- Could we improve safety more by advising drivers of 'coping strategies'
rather than imposing bans?
- How does a mobile phone conversation differ from a conversation with
passengers?
- Are all drivers equally affected by mobile phone driving? Or are some drivers
at especially high risk?

And there's something surprising in our national figures for road crash
contributory factors. We've grown used to the 'accepted wisdom' that using a
mobile phone while driving is dangerous, but 'driver using mobile phone' was
only recorded in 13 fatal crashes (0.5%) and 306 injury crashes (0.2%) in 2005
[1]. Astonishingly these rates of crash involvement are actually less than the
prevalence of mobile phone driving in the traffic. According to a survey
published by TRL [2], around 2.5% of car drivers and 3.5% of other drivers were
on the phone at sample sites (also in 2005).

This raises the possibility that mobile phone driving is not as dangerous as we
think. If it was dangerous then we would expect mobile phone driving to be
over-represented in the crash statistics, when in fact it is significantly
under-represented. The authorities cannot argue that it is difficult to
determine mobile phone use after a crash because in fatal crash investigations
the Police routinely examine mobile phone records. So although this argument
might apply to lower severity crashes, it cannot be applied to fatal crashes.

So there is a pretty substantial clash between what the science warns us to
expect and the real world results. This is a strong clear warning that the
science isn't yet telling us the whole picture. That's reasonable because
science is a long slow process and mobile phones have not been with us for very
long. What's not so reasonable is that we're throwing legislation around when
we don't really fully understand what's going on.

Two effects of the updated legislation are pretty certain. One is that we'll
penalise a great many drivers, some of whom will lose their licences and their
jobs. The second is that we will use valuable road safety resources chasing a
problem that the crash statistics cannot confirm. Both effects are tragic
because they will mean more damaged lives for an immeasurably small benefit.
I'm most worried about the 'opportunity cost' of road safety resources diverted
from much greater crash causes.

There is no doubt that people sometimes use mobile phones dangerously while
driving. But we have long had suitable laws to allow prosecution in such cases.
Any dangerous use of a mobile phone would be 'driving without due care and
attention' or even 'dangerous driving'.

So… Myth or reality?

- Mobile phone drivers are as dangerous as drink drivers? Myth. The crash
statistics suggest that drunks are involved in 20 times more fatal crashes
while, crucially, drunks are less prevalent in the traffic than mobile phone
drivers.
- Hands free mobile phones aren't potentially dangerous? Myth. The science is
clear as crystal. Holding the phone isn't the problem - something about phone
conversations is the problem.
- Mobile phones are a big modern killer on our roads? Myth. They are a small
modern killer.
- Using any sort of mobile phone while driving is potentially dangerous?
Reality. The science tells us that mobile phone driving can badly affect hazard
perception.

All things considered, I'm pretty sure that 'upgrading' the mobile phone
driving laws will make road safety worse rather than better because we're
moving life saving resources away from known real crash causes towards mainly
theoretical crash causes. One thing is certain. When a Police officer is
processing your mobile phone ticket, he's not arresting a drunk driver.

<ends>

[1] DfT Contributory factors report:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/172974/173025/189 ... ualfigures

[2] TRL report LF2100 http://217.118.128.203/store/downloadreport.asp?id=5485

The new law will criminalise tens of
thousands, but it won't save a single life."

We've grown used to the 'accepted wisdom' that using a
mobile phone while driving is dangerous, but 'driver using mobile phone' was
only recorded in 13 fatal crashes (0.5%) and 306 injury crashes (0.2%) in 2005

I wonder how many more times it actually happened but the culprit was able to secrete the evidence resulting in another causation factor being cited.

I know this has been discussed at length and is the subject of much disagreement but ...

We say that one of the many reasons to remove cameras is the momentary lapse of concentration on the road caused by unecessarily looking at the speedomenter. We don't really have any "proof" that this increases the collision risk but it seems plausible.

On the other hand we now seem to be saying that something which plausibly does distract concentration from driving is acceptable.

Whether or not there is evidence, this seems a contradictory position.

Whilst I agree that DWDCA plus police actually on the road should suffice - I'm not entirely sure this was a wise move. It could attract unwanted flak and distract people from our main issues.

The issue as I see it, whether or not talking on a mobile in a particular suspension method is more or less risky than whatever, is that there is no need for a new law (complete with associated fixed penalty option for fast revenue generation) when DWDC&A will suffice, in those circumstances where talking on the phone causes the driver to drive in an unsafe fashion.

This administration seems to have an obsession with creating strict liability offences; tick in the box without any concept of mens rea, no professional discretion required to enforce.

The question you have to ask is: 'Why are they creating a new offence when the existing DWDC&A would cover it?' Do you suppose it might be so that it does not require police to enforce it? If you take away the requirement for a trained officer to be of the opinion that someone was driving unsafely then you can have it policed by any old Tom, Dick or Harry. Who exactly could Tom, Dick or Harry be then? Well, now that popular opinion is turning against automated enforcement of arbitrary speed limits, I know a whole bunch of people with video equipment who are eminently qualified to sit by the side of a road all day in order to police this new offence which the administration have managed to popularly demonise without any real scientific basis.

'Why are they creating a new offence when the existing DWDC&A would cover it?'

You may be correct when you say that statistics doesnt show KSi being atributed to mobile phone usage, thats because when I attend a collision no matter how serious it may be the driver isnt going to say, sorry, oficer my fault I was on my phone .

There are lots of scientific papers about using mobile phones and driving. And they virtually all find the same thing: Using a mobile phone can be extremely distracting to drivers. But they find equal distraction from hand held and from hands-free equipment. According to the science the problems experienced by drivers have nothing to do with holding the phone and everything to do with the mental effects of the conversation.

Can anyone clearly define ‘mobile phone driving’?

I wonder how many more times it actually happened but the culprit was able to secrete the evidence resulting in another causation factor being cited.