Brake want to ban hands free phones
Discussion
22Rgt said:
There was once a time before mobile phones you had to get out of the car to use a phone box or wait till journeys end to use the phone. The argument for using a phone in the car however its used is a dead end one, technology may have moved on but the world still went round without mobile phones. The obsession some have with having to answer texts, facebook messages ect and emails immediately is bordering on the ridiculous. My phone stays with me in the car but dont have a handsfree, if theres a missed call theres a missed call, life will still go on..
You're organising a deal, and you're betting your small company on winning it, and things are down to the wire, you've left the final meeting and are driving home.The phone rings, it could be someone with a last minute question, something that could win the deal over your competitor. Your competitor may already have taken the call in their car because they don't care about phone laws.
Do you:
A)Use hands free to take the call while you find somewhere to pull up if it's going to take a while.
B)Potentially lose the deal, lay off your staff, and close the company.
Before the world was the same for everybody, and nobody could call from their car. But you can't un-invent the mobile phone or the expectations of other people that you will answer the phone. Just answering the call hands free and saying "Hey guy's I'll find somewhere to stop and give you a call back in 10 mins", could save the day. But you wouldn't and you'd give the edge to the competition?
Munter said:
22Rgt said:
There was once a time before mobile phones you had to get out of the car to use a phone box or wait till journeys end to use the phone. The argument for using a phone in the car however its used is a dead end one, technology may have moved on but the world still went round without mobile phones. The obsession some have with having to answer texts, facebook messages ect and emails immediately is bordering on the ridiculous. My phone stays with me in the car but dont have a handsfree, if theres a missed call theres a missed call, life will still go on..
You're organising a deal, and you're betting your small company on winning it, and things are down to the wire, you've left the final meeting and are driving home.The phone rings, it could be someone with a last minute question, something that could win the deal over your competitor. Your competitor may already have taken the call in their car because they don't care about phone laws.
Do you:
A)Potentially crash and die wile using the hands free to take the call, company and life over, staff gone.
B)Potentially lose the deal, lay off your staff, and close the company.
Munter said:
22Rgt said:
There was once a time before mobile phones you had to get out of the car to use a phone box or wait till journeys end to use the phone. The argument for using a phone in the car however its used is a dead end one, technology may have moved on but the world still went round without mobile phones. The obsession some have with having to answer texts, facebook messages ect and emails immediately is bordering on the ridiculous. My phone stays with me in the car but dont have a handsfree, if theres a missed call theres a missed call, life will still go on..
You're organising a deal, and you're betting your small company on winning it, and things are down to the wire, you've left the final meeting and are driving home.The phone rings, it could be someone with a last minute question, something that could win the deal over your competitor. Your competitor may already have taken the call in their car because they don't care about phone laws.
Do you:
A)Use hands free to take the call while you find somewhere to pull up if it's going to take a while.
B)Potentially lose the deal, lay off your staff, and close the company.
Would a company base it's choice on who to pick on who takes their call first?
Or would they give both potential suppliers a chance to get back to them with an answer?
If it really ever is as you say then i'd suggest they were going to go with the other company anyway.
Devil2575 said:
Munter said:
22Rgt said:
There was once a time before mobile phones you had to get out of the car to use a phone box or wait till journeys end to use the phone. The argument for using a phone in the car however its used is a dead end one, technology may have moved on but the world still went round without mobile phones. The obsession some have with having to answer texts, facebook messages ect and emails immediately is bordering on the ridiculous. My phone stays with me in the car but dont have a handsfree, if theres a missed call theres a missed call, life will still go on..
You're organising a deal, and you're betting your small company on winning it, and things are down to the wire, you've left the final meeting and are driving home.The phone rings, it could be someone with a last minute question, something that could win the deal over your competitor. Your competitor may already have taken the call in their car because they don't care about phone laws.
Do you:
A)Use hands free to take the call while you find somewhere to pull up if it's going to take a while.
B)Potentially lose the deal, lay off your staff, and close the company.
Would a company base it's choice on who to pick on who takes their call first?
Or would they give both potential suppliers a chance to get back to them with an answer?
If it really ever is as you say then i'd suggest they were going to go with the other company anyway.
Devil2575 said:
Is that situation ever likely?
Would a company base it's choice on who to pick on who takes their call first?
Or would they give both potential suppliers a chance to get back to them with an answer?
If it really ever is as you say then i'd suggest they were going to go with the other company anyway.
Yes. I did point out this would be up against the wire not at the start. If you fail to take that call (not who answers first), you could fail to answer a key question that cropped up last minute, as they are sat around that table. If the other guys answer it and you don't... You can lose the business, because you clearly don't think them important. It's not always even the answer you give (hence the "Let me park up I'll call you back"). Just taking their call when they call you, makes you look like you care more. Constantly failing to take peoples calls, while the competition does makes you look like a tWould a company base it's choice on who to pick on who takes their call first?
Or would they give both potential suppliers a chance to get back to them with an answer?
If it really ever is as you say then i'd suggest they were going to go with the other company anyway.
t. Would you prefer to sign a deal with a company who's guys are always able to take your call, or one who's people don't care enough to bother?And no. Many companies don't always give you a chance to get back with an answer. Picking up the phone was your chance.
What's wrong with:
If someone is driving like a t
t pull them over and give them a ticket for due care and attention. If they are not, leave them alone as whatever they are doing is better than how most people drive.jmorgan said:
Why not pull over and take the call, stay in a hotel, change jobs etc etc etc. There are loads of scenarios and no easy answers you could probably chuck up, none of which will make it safer.
But it doesn't need to be safer is the point. There are 1000s of things we could do to make driving safer. But we don't because it's safe enough as it is. The vast majority of drivers can hold a simple conversation using hands free and drive in a safe enough manner. I think most can decide a call is affecting their driving, and should be educated to stop the call or pull over. But why ban hands free over passengers/maps/unnecessary displays etc etc. Why not just enforce driving without due care and attention? If a cop sees you and thinks "wtf are they doing", you should get a ticket. Regardless of why you were driving badly.Johnnytheboy said:
Topics like this always end up with a selection of posters refusing to acknowledge that any risk is an acceptable level of risk, however obvious the benefits.
Unlikely to cause a crash but a crash may have a catastrophic effect. Someone, somewhere, may lose a business deal in the next hundred years vs. x someone may die unnecesarily this month/year.
It's not a really necessary risk to take in the first place.
Munter - In the business deal scenario if it was law then they wouldn't phone you or would leave a message; like they did before mobiles. They'd perhaps think less of you and your wits if you did answer while driving anyway, so perhaps making it law helps out with this scenario as then you can't be pressured into answering extremely important questions that may have radical consequences whilst driving in other traffic (probably not a good combination...).
andy_s said:
Munter - In the business deal scenario if it was law then they wouldn't phone you or would leave a message; like they did before mobiles. They'd perhaps think less of you and your wits if you did answer while driving anyway, so perhaps making it law helps out with this scenario as then you can't be pressured into answering extremely important questions that may have radical consequences whilst driving in other traffic (probably not a good combination...).
It doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Clients were quite happy to phone people they knew were driving before hands free kits were common. If your competitor is going "break the law" to take the call. And they will. You'll have to to compete with them. It's not about you and the client. It's about you vs your competitor(s). And if contacting you is a pain of messages and phone tag, vs them appearing to be always available....Uninvent the mobile, and the problem go's away. Otherwise it's here to stay and we should stick to enforcing current laws that cover rubbish driving/drivers, and educating people to know when their driving is impaired. E.g. Don't drive tired. Take a break. Why don't we have, "Talking is a distraction, consider pulling over to finish your call".
Or we have to legislate for absolutely anything that could distract or otherwise impair a driver.
I think that we can agree that a mobil is a distraction, but the question should be how big a distraction is it? Every thing you do whilst driving has an element of risk, if you go at an inappropriate speed, talk to a passenger. Brake have concluded that every person is incapable of driving whilst speaking on the phone.
Clearly we witness police drivers doing it, are they super human? It is like the speed kills message, ignore some of the facts and you get what you want to say.
There are millions of call taken everyday in cars, how many of those result in accidents? How many result in deaths? Everytime we ban something we dumb things down.
I went to a factory in Germany, there I saw people who were not wearing safety shoes etc. Discussing this with the manager he told me that in Germany people take responsibility for their own actions, once they were told the comapny was not forced to nanny the workers. They had a similar factory in the UK where they had to enforce everything. The accident rate was higher in the UK because they assumed that everything was safe and took less steps to ensure their own safety.
Raise it as an issue, but banning something that is impossible to police is stupid. But Brake have to do something to keep their profile going.
When lobbyists who worked on the banning of tobacco use in pubs, and work places, were sucessful they were out of work. So they now are looking at drinking to demonise, Brake are just another lobby group.
Clearly we witness police drivers doing it, are they super human? It is like the speed kills message, ignore some of the facts and you get what you want to say.
There are millions of call taken everyday in cars, how many of those result in accidents? How many result in deaths? Everytime we ban something we dumb things down.
I went to a factory in Germany, there I saw people who were not wearing safety shoes etc. Discussing this with the manager he told me that in Germany people take responsibility for their own actions, once they were told the comapny was not forced to nanny the workers. They had a similar factory in the UK where they had to enforce everything. The accident rate was higher in the UK because they assumed that everything was safe and took less steps to ensure their own safety.
Raise it as an issue, but banning something that is impossible to police is stupid. But Brake have to do something to keep their profile going.
When lobbyists who worked on the banning of tobacco use in pubs, and work places, were sucessful they were out of work. So they now are looking at drinking to demonise, Brake are just another lobby group.
Munter said:
andy_s said:
Munter - In the business deal scenario if it was law then they wouldn't phone you or would leave a message; like they did before mobiles. They'd perhaps think less of you and your wits if you did answer while driving anyway, so perhaps making it law helps out with this scenario as then you can't be pressured into answering extremely important questions that may have radical consequences whilst driving in other traffic (probably not a good combination...).
It doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Clients were quite happy to phone people they knew were driving before hands free kits were common. If your competitor is going "break the law" to take the call. And they will. You'll have to to compete with them. It's not about you and the client. It's about you vs your competitor(s). And if contacting you is a pain of messages and phone tag, vs them appearing to be always available....Uninvent the mobile, and the problem go's away. Otherwise it's here to stay and we should stick to enforcing current laws that cover rubbish driving/drivers, and educating people to know when their driving is impaired. E.g. Don't drive tired. Take a break. Why don't we have, "Talking is a distraction, consider pulling over to finish your call".
Or we have to legislate for absolutely anything that could distract or otherwise impair a driver.
'Uninventing the mobile' is what you do effectlively if you ban it completely by law.
There's lots of things to help driving, no doubt - and I agree with what you say about enforcement of careless driving is more important, I even agree that we should try not to legislate to the lowest common denominator nor nanny people constantly. Unfortunately experience shows that people need nannying, (too many competitors doing important business deals at the wheel probably), but not to deal with one issue because you can't deal with them all is not a very good strategy.
andy_s said:
Well, I think you're over-egging the pudding on that example, and it's the only one really, has it happened to you at all?
Yep. We lost a deal because a salesman didn't take a call. The quote afterwards was something like "We'd have preferred your solution but couldn't contact the salesman to confirm an item, so as the other guys could, and we'd lose the budget if we didn't submit before the end of the day, we went with them to avoid the risk."Que the wrong product being chosen, used for a couple of years, thrown out, and then running the whole purchasing process again. We doubled our costs, and lost 2 years revenue on that account, because one person didn't answer their phone once, to answer a Yes/No type question. If we'd been a smaller firm that would have had serious consequences. As it was a couple of jobs we could have created went to the US for a few years instead.
You don't know when that phone call, is going to be THAT phone call. And to make taking it illegal is just daft, compared to all the other things that would be considered legal. Especially as I think we both agree bad driving, however it's caused, is covered under existing legislation.
Munter said:
Yes. I did point out this would be up against the wire not at the start. If you fail to take that call (not who answers first), you could fail to answer a key question that cropped up last minute, as they are sat around that table. If the other guys answer it and you don't... You can lose the business, because you clearly don't think them important. It's not always even the answer you give (hence the "Let me park up I'll call you back"). Just taking their call when they call you, makes you look like you care more. Constantly failing to take peoples calls, while the competition does makes you look like a tt. Would you prefer to sign a deal with a company who's guys are always able to take your call, or one who's people don't care enough to bother?
And no. Many companies don't always give you a chance to get back with an answer. Picking up the phone was your chance.
What's wrong with:
If someone is driving like a tt pull them over and give them a ticket for due care and attention. If they are not, leave them alone as whatever they are doing is better than how most people drive.
The company I work for bans the use of mobiles in cars period, so it wouldn't be an issue.t. Would you prefer to sign a deal with a company who's guys are always able to take your call, or one who's people don't care enough to bother?And no. Many companies don't always give you a chance to get back with an answer. Picking up the phone was your chance.
What's wrong with:
If someone is driving like a t
t pull them over and give them a ticket for due care and attention. If they are not, leave them alone as whatever they are doing is better than how most people drive.The scenario you describe just doesn't sound very credible. Surely companies have a much more robust criteria for putting business your way other than who takes your calls everytime no matter what? If your phone rings how long is it going to take you to find somewhere to stop safely? 20 minutes?
Would the company execs really sit round the table and try to get you on the phone to answer a question to enable them to make an instant decision? The company I work for wouldn't. They would break and reconvene once all parties had been given a chance to respond.
Devil2575 said:
The company I work for bans the use of mobiles in cars period, so it wouldn't be an issue.
The scenario you describe just doesn't sound very credible. Surely companies have a much more robust criteria for putting business your way other than who takes your calls everytime no matter what? If your phone rings how long is it going to take you to find somewhere to stop safely? 20 minutes?
Would the company execs really sit round the table and try to get you on the phone to answer a question to enable them to make an instant decision? The company I work for wouldn't. They would break and reconvene once all parties had been given a chance to respond.
Not all companies run the same way. I'm no longer surprised at how processes that appear identical, are run totally differently by different companies, and even managers in the same company. And how many places run the process, decide they don't like the result and make an apparently random decision based on the budget holders whims.The scenario you describe just doesn't sound very credible. Surely companies have a much more robust criteria for putting business your way other than who takes your calls everytime no matter what? If your phone rings how long is it going to take you to find somewhere to stop safely? 20 minutes?
Would the company execs really sit round the table and try to get you on the phone to answer a question to enable them to make an instant decision? The company I work for wouldn't. They would break and reconvene once all parties had been given a chance to respond.
Unless they are regulated it appears process is only a stick with which to beat minions.
Munter said:
jmorgan said:
Why not pull over and take the call, stay in a hotel, change jobs etc etc etc. There are loads of scenarios and no easy answers you could probably chuck up, none of which will make it safer.
But it doesn't need to be safer is the point. There are 1000s of things we could do to make driving safer. But we don't because it's safe enough as it is. The vast majority of drivers can hold a simple conversation using hands free and drive in a safe enough manner. I think most can decide a call is affecting their driving, and should be educated to stop the call or pull over. But why ban hands free over passengers/maps/unnecessary displays etc etc. Why not just enforce driving without due care and attention? If a cop sees you and thinks "wtf are they doing", you should get a ticket. Regardless of why you were driving badly.The point is again missed as to why a phone call is not the same as someone in the car or a cassette change etc. Observations over the years back this up and I think the reason the world has not ended yet is because other drivers avoid the ones crossing junctions and wandering at 50 up the motorway as if they have been on the pop.
Either way, there will be no ban, Brake are after the publicity as usual, I think and the police will only tug you if its obvious and they have the time for the paper work. Or the chief super is on a mission.
Vipers said:
There are too many "OMG if I don't answer the phone, the world as we know will come to an end", get a fecking grip on life people.
No, don't ban phones, just shoot idiots at birth.
Can we allow a brief period for verification that we are, in fact, idiots?No, don't ban phones, just shoot idiots at birth.
I mean, hell, it took me years to establish my credentials as a fully qualified idiot.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff