Using mobile phone when stopped/parked
Discussion
Paul_M3 said:
staniland said:
Paul_M3 said:
I fully understand that line of thinking (which is clearly correct), but it doesn't necessarily make it any different from various other distractions.
That's a common myth.The common conception is that passengers are able to better regulate conversation based on the perceived level of danger, therefore the risk is negligible. A study by a University of South Carolina psychology researcher featured in the journal, Experimental Psychology, found that planning to speak and speaking put far more demands on the brain’s resources than listening. Measurement of attention levels showed that subjects were four times more distracted while preparing to speak or speaking than when they were listening.[26] The Accident Research Unit at the University of Nottingham found that the number of utterances was usually higher for mobile calls when compared to blindfolded and non-blindfolded passengers across various driving conditions. The number of questions asked averaged slightly higher for mobile phone conversations, although results were not constant across road types and largely influenced by a large number of questions on the urban roads.[27]
A 2004 University of Utah simulation study that compared passenger and cell-phone conversations concluded that the driver performs better when conversing with a passenger because the traffic and driving task become part of the conversation. Drivers holding conversations on cell phones were four times more likely to miss the highway exit than those with passengers, and drivers conversing with passengers showed no statistically significant difference from lone drivers in the simulator.[28] A study led by Andrew Parkes at the Transport Research Laboratory, also with a driving simulator, concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than other common in-vehicle distractions such as passenger conversations.[29]
Newswise: Talking Distractions: Study Shows Why Cell Phones and Driving Don't Mix
Jump up ^ David Crundall, Manpreet Bains, Peter Chapman, Geoffrey Underwood (2005). "Regulating conversation during driving: a problem for mobile telephones?" (PDF). Transportation Research, Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 8F (3): 197–211. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2005.01.003.
Jump up ^ Drews, Frank; Monisha Pasupathi and David L. Strayer (2004). "Passenger and Cell-Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving" (PDF). Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting.
Jump up ^ Conversations in cars: the relative hazards of mobile phones
All you've done there is copy and paste some statements from studies comparing talking on a phone and talking to passengers.
Can you point out in my post where I was talking about adult passengers being an equal distraction to mobile phones?
It's obvious to anybody with an IQ above 70 that a mobile phone conversation will be more distracting then an adult passenger who can also react to things happening ahead.
I was specifically talking about other distractions such as looking at radios, sat navs, talking with CHILDREN passengers etc.
The point is that (according to the things you've quoted) mobile phone use may result in a decreased reaction time of 0.1 to 0.2 seconds.
So following on from your earlier comment in the thread, do you therefore also think that all people who look down for one or two seconds to change the radio station are 'scum who should rot in jail'?
Mobile phone use while driving can be (and often is) utterly reckless and irresponsible and would warrant severe punishment.
I would however argue that it's possible to use a phone in such a way that the increase in danger to yourself and others would be insignificant.
Perhaps it's just the way I think, but for you to classify every single user of a phone whilst driving 'as scum' is completely illogical.
It's the same as classing somebody driving past a school at 3:30pm doing 50 mph, and somebody doing 90 mph on an empty motorway as equally bad.
Both are 20 mph above the speed limit, but one is a far greater danger than the other.
Your previous post about 'Other Distractions' whilst driving needs to be challenged.
Apart from the latest sat-nav devices that are factory fitted, all the others that you quote,while distracting to a degree, pale into insignificance when compared to talking on a mobile phone.
The distractions that you quote are all 'in car', the mobile conversation is 'remote'.
That is the danger.
The data quoted in the post is wholly relevant to what is reaching epidemic proportions: mobile telephone use.
I predict that because of that, in the not too distant future, mobile use will be a driving ban offence and eventually will be outlawed compltely.
I doubt it will ever be banned, unless a way to block the calls technically can be found (which in itself may be very undesirable for other reasons). Laws which cannot be enforced are bad laws and are generally avoided, and a law outlawing participation in a phone conversation whilst driving would be unenforcable.
WD39 said:
An unnessesary and irrational reply to a perfectly logical and reasonable post.
Your previous post about 'Other Distractions' whilst driving needs to be challenged.
Apart from the latest sat-nav devices that are factory fitted, all the others that you quote,while distracting to a degree, pale into insignificance when compared to talking on a mobile phone.
The distractions that you quote are all 'in car', the mobile conversation is 'remote'.
That is the danger.
The data quoted in the post is wholly relevant to what is reaching epidemic proportions: mobile telephone use.
I predict that because of that, in the not too distant future, mobile use will be a driving ban offence and eventually will be outlawed compltely.
So 'staniland' says anybody who uses a phone whilst driving is scum and should rot in jail, but it's MY post that is irrational?Your previous post about 'Other Distractions' whilst driving needs to be challenged.
Apart from the latest sat-nav devices that are factory fitted, all the others that you quote,while distracting to a degree, pale into insignificance when compared to talking on a mobile phone.
The distractions that you quote are all 'in car', the mobile conversation is 'remote'.
That is the danger.
The data quoted in the post is wholly relevant to what is reaching epidemic proportions: mobile telephone use.
I predict that because of that, in the not too distant future, mobile use will be a driving ban offence and eventually will be outlawed compltely.
What exactly was 'irrational' about my reply? (genuine question)
I'm curious what evidence do you have that other distractions 'pale into insignificance' compared to talking on a phone?
I still don't understand how a couple of kids playing up in the back of a car are any less distracting than somebody at the end of a phone. They are just as remote in the sense they have absolutely no comprehension of what is happening that the driver needs to be aware of.
The difference is that they might be distracting for 2 hours constantly, as opposed to somebody who answers the phone for 20 seconds.
The data in his post may well be relevant to mobile phone use, but that doesn't make it relevant to the points I was raising. (Which he called a myth)
As I stated earlier in the thread, I don't use a mobile whilst driving and would never argue that it has NO effect on driving ability.
I just find some of the comments from the anti-phone brigade bordering on ridiculous.
The news item was updated on tonight's programme with the offender saying she'd now been offered a SAC instead, and the Chief Constable smiling and advising people to buy their other half a Bluetooth kit for Christmas (and maintaining the woman had committed an offence and had been dealt with reasonably). She was then filmed in her car parked in a quiet back street to illustrate, I assume, where the offence had occurred. Seems to me a very heavy-handed approach for the BiB on this occasion.
I would expect a switched on good driver to know the issues with distractions, and phones and conversations on them are up the top of the list, the way your brain deals with it is different to the kids or the CD or the sat nav. And I understand that employers now have to be very careful with work issued mobiles for their employees and the uses and the way they are used.
Easy to deal with though, put it out of reach, turn it off, turn to silent.
Easy to deal with though, put it out of reach, turn it off, turn to silent.
jmorgan said:
I would expect a switched on good driver to know the issues with distractions, and phones and conversations on them are up the top of the list, the way your brain deals with it is different to the kids or the CD or the sat nav. And I understand that employers now have to be very careful with work issued mobiles for their employees and the uses and the way they are used.
Easy to deal with though, put it out of reach, turn it off, turn to silent.
I would expect a switched on good driver to know when he can or cannot, take or make a call, light a cigarette, change the radio station/cd, interact with his satnav .......................................etc etc etc.Easy to deal with though, put it out of reach, turn it off, turn to silent.
I find I don't need safety cretins to identify these things for me.
Escort3500 said:
The news item was updated on tonight's programme with the offender saying she'd now been offered a SAC instead, and the Chief Constable smiling and advising people to buy their other half a Bluetooth kit for Christmas (and maintaining the woman had committed an offence and had been dealt with reasonably). She was then filmed in her car parked in a quiet back street to illustrate, I assume, where the offence had occurred. Seems to me a very heavy-handed approach for the BiB on this occasion.
You really have to worry about the mentality of the CC. Of all the things happening on the roads of his police Force area this is just trivial. You can though see where his junior Officers are coming from. I think one thing hasn't been touched on enough.
Have you ever studied the younger generation, phone calling is stone age. They just don't do it very often. Whenever I have seen the younger generation driving holding a phone you can see them trying to tap the keys and balance the phone whilst texting. I could swear the women next to me at the lights the other day was on Facebook or Twitter, however I didn't have enough time to really pay attention to her.
So I think mobile phone calls are becoming less but interactive media is on the increase. How on earth do you write on Facebook or text and drive at the same time. These people should be fighter pilots instead with that degree of spatial awareness ( sarcasm btw. lol)
Have you ever studied the younger generation, phone calling is stone age. They just don't do it very often. Whenever I have seen the younger generation driving holding a phone you can see them trying to tap the keys and balance the phone whilst texting. I could swear the women next to me at the lights the other day was on Facebook or Twitter, however I didn't have enough time to really pay attention to her.
So I think mobile phone calls are becoming less but interactive media is on the increase. How on earth do you write on Facebook or text and drive at the same time. These people should be fighter pilots instead with that degree of spatial awareness ( sarcasm btw. lol)
Edited by Sunnysidebb on Saturday 20th December 00:07
Edited by Sunnysidebb on Saturday 20th December 00:08
Sunnysidebb said:
I think one thing hasn't been touched on enough.
Have you ever studied the younger generation, phone calling is stone age. They just don't do it very often. Whenever I have seen the younger generation driving holding a phone you can see them trying to tap the keys and balance the phone whilst texting. I could swear the women next to me at the lights the other day was on Facebook or Twitter, however I didn't have enough time to really pay attention to her.
So I think mobile phone calls are becoming less but interactive media is on the increase. How on earth do you write on Facebook or text and drive at the same time. These people should be fighter pilots instead with that degree of spatial awareness ( sarcasm btw. lol)
I can't say I've observed what others do, but you may well be right.Have you ever studied the younger generation, phone calling is stone age. They just don't do it very often. Whenever I have seen the younger generation driving holding a phone you can see them trying to tap the keys and balance the phone whilst texting. I could swear the women next to me at the lights the other day was on Facebook or Twitter, however I didn't have enough time to really pay attention to her.
So I think mobile phone calls are becoming less but interactive media is on the increase. How on earth do you write on Facebook or text and drive at the same time. These people should be fighter pilots instead with that degree of spatial awareness ( sarcasm btw. lol)
As far as I'm concerned the use of a mobile phone, even a hand-held one, can be quite safe if confined to brief and simple communications where the demands of the driving task are low, and I occasionally still use a phone in those circumstances. I know this contravenes the law, but IMHO it can be done quite safely.
What I can not understand is how anyone can compose and send text messages while driving. In fact I don't think I would even try to read an incoming text message while driving. That is an entirely different matter from merely carrying on a conversation.
p1esk said:
As far as I'm concerned the use of a mobile phone, even a hand-held one, can be quite safe if confined to brief and simple communications where the demands of the driving task are low
Whom am I to question your ability, and I don't dispute what you say is wrong, but you may well be aware of your capabilities, assess road conditions and make those brief calls, but the majority can't, that's the problem.Example was the lorry driver I saw last week with a phone glued to his ear, negotiating a busy roundabout with one hand, he probably thought it was Ok as well.
It's a debate we can discuss to doomsday, but at the end of the day the law is the law, and if people think the world will stop if they don't answer the phone, why risk a fine when a hands free is the answer.
Be careful out there when your on the phone, don't want to wish you parting your hard earned dosh.
Vipers said:
Whom am I to question your ability, and I don't dispute what you say is wrong, but you may well be aware of your capabilities, assess road conditions and make those brief calls, but the majority can't, that's the problem.
Example was the lorry driver I saw last week with a phone glued to his ear, negotiating a busy roundabout with one hand, he probably thought it was Ok as well.
It's a debate we can discuss to doomsday, but at the end of the day the law is the law, and if people think the world will stop if they don't answer the phone, why risk a fine when a hands free is the answer.
Be careful out there when your on the phone, don't want to wish you parting your hard earned dosh.
P1esk is actually a jolly good driver, I've observed him first hand, and I agree with him, it can be done safely, I did it myself when it was legal, for years and years.Example was the lorry driver I saw last week with a phone glued to his ear, negotiating a busy roundabout with one hand, he probably thought it was Ok as well.
It's a debate we can discuss to doomsday, but at the end of the day the law is the law, and if people think the world will stop if they don't answer the phone, why risk a fine when a hands free is the answer.
Be careful out there when your on the phone, don't want to wish you parting your hard earned dosh.
But, read the thread, there are people walking amongst us that have bought into all the safety crap, they want you banned/jailed/hung, whatever, for hands free !
They'll keep on until they get their way of course, smoking will also be banned eventually, we really are becoming a totalitarian state, and very quickly.
Nigel Worc's said:
P1esk is actually a jolly good driver, I've observed him first hand, and I agree with him, it can be done safely, I did it myself when it was legal, for years and years.
But, read the thread, there are people walking amongst us that have bought into all the safety crap, they want you banned/jailed/hung, whatever, for hands free !
They'll keep on until they get their way of course, smoking will also be banned eventually, we really are becoming a totalitarian state, and very quickly.
Agree, I am sure I could do it as well, but don't want parting with my dosh. From what I have read in the past, I have every respect for P1esk, not that I have ever met him, just an opinion from his posts.But, read the thread, there are people walking amongst us that have bought into all the safety crap, they want you banned/jailed/hung, whatever, for hands free !
They'll keep on until they get their way of course, smoking will also be banned eventually, we really are becoming a totalitarian state, and very quickly.
Vipers said:
Nigel Worc's said:
P1esk is actually a jolly good driver, I've observed him first hand, and I agree with him, it can be done safely, I did it myself when it was legal, for years and years.
But, read the thread, there are people walking amongst us that have bought into all the safety crap, they want you banned/jailed/hung, whatever, for hands free !
They'll keep on until they get their way of course, smoking will also be banned eventually, we really are becoming a totalitarian state, and very quickly.
Agree, I am sure I could do it as well, but don't want parting with my dosh. From what I have read in the past, I have every respect for P1esk, not that I have ever met him, just an opinion from his posts.But, read the thread, there are people walking amongst us that have bought into all the safety crap, they want you banned/jailed/hung, whatever, for hands free !
They'll keep on until they get their way of course, smoking will also be banned eventually, we really are becoming a totalitarian state, and very quickly.
In truth I now very rarely use my mobile phone when on the move: having been retired for several years the need for it hardly ever arises.
If I'm at risk of being parted from my dosh, it's most likely to be through being 'a bit over the limit' in NSL areas. Oh well....
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Derek Smith said:
I presume you would like an explanation.
Driving starts when you start your journey and continues, with exceptions, until you stop.
There is case law which states that a person who stopped his car because he had cramp and was exercising to relieve it was driving as, once the cramp was eased, he would have resumed his journey. Another where a driver stopped to by flowers from a stall. He'd stopped the car, stopped the engine, exited, walked over to the stall: driving.
It doesn't take a lot of working out to realise why the word driving was extended to include these sorts of events for the drink drive legislation (since reworded and changed). However, when legislators use the word driving, it opens one of those metal things with worms in them.
So once in your car, your are driving until your reach your destination. If you stop for refs at a services then it is unlikely that you will fall under that definition. However, it is a matter of fact to be proved.
Do you feel lucky, punk? The sensible thing is to go handsfree.
I can't be bothered to read all your following other posts, but what a load of tosh.Driving starts when you start your journey and continues, with exceptions, until you stop.
There is case law which states that a person who stopped his car because he had cramp and was exercising to relieve it was driving as, once the cramp was eased, he would have resumed his journey. Another where a driver stopped to by flowers from a stall. He'd stopped the car, stopped the engine, exited, walked over to the stall: driving.
It doesn't take a lot of working out to realise why the word driving was extended to include these sorts of events for the drink drive legislation (since reworded and changed). However, when legislators use the word driving, it opens one of those metal things with worms in them.
So once in your car, your are driving until your reach your destination. If you stop for refs at a services then it is unlikely that you will fall under that definition. However, it is a matter of fact to be proved.
Do you feel lucky, punk? The sensible thing is to go handsfree.
Please point us to this supposed case law.
martinbiz said:
Derek Smith said:
I presume you would like an explanation.
Driving starts when you start your journey and continues, with exceptions, until you stop.
There is case law which states that a person who stopped his car because he had cramp and was exercising to relieve it was driving as, once the cramp was eased, he would have resumed his journey. Another where a driver stopped to by flowers from a stall. He'd stopped the car, stopped the engine, exited, walked over to the stall: driving.
It doesn't take a lot of working out to realise why the word driving was extended to include these sorts of events for the drink drive legislation (since reworded and changed). However, when legislators use the word driving, it opens one of those metal things with worms in them.
So once in your car, your are driving until your reach your destination. If you stop for refs at a services then it is unlikely that you will fall under that definition. However, it is a matter of fact to be proved.
Do you feel lucky, punk? The sensible thing is to go handsfree.
I can't be bothered to read all your following other posts, but what a load of tosh.Driving starts when you start your journey and continues, with exceptions, until you stop.
There is case law which states that a person who stopped his car because he had cramp and was exercising to relieve it was driving as, once the cramp was eased, he would have resumed his journey. Another where a driver stopped to by flowers from a stall. He'd stopped the car, stopped the engine, exited, walked over to the stall: driving.
It doesn't take a lot of working out to realise why the word driving was extended to include these sorts of events for the drink drive legislation (since reworded and changed). However, when legislators use the word driving, it opens one of those metal things with worms in them.
So once in your car, your are driving until your reach your destination. If you stop for refs at a services then it is unlikely that you will fall under that definition. However, it is a matter of fact to be proved.
Do you feel lucky, punk? The sensible thing is to go handsfree.
Please point us to this supposed case law.
martinbiz said:
I can't be bothered to read all your following other posts, but what a load of tosh.
Please point us to this supposed case law.
I'm reasonably confident that they are cases from the 1970s - about repealed legislation - section 8 of the RTA 1972. The RTA 1988 created the various 'in charge' offences which replaced section 8. The old cases are of historical value but not particularly instructive or relevant to offences not involving drink driving / being in charge.Please point us to this supposed case law.
Derek, it's almost 2015. Get with the programme.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff