Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[Devil2575]

The Surveyor said:

There is certainly some opinion that supports your view, but for me there isn't enough to justify a change of the law IMHO. That isn't a 'smoking is safe and asbestos is wonderful' blinkered view, just that I'm naturally critical of selected opinion being presented as factual evidence to support something I don't agree with. I'm open to have my view changed but not by a couple of limited tests, an edited article from ROSPA, and a BBC article about a single tragic incident.

It's not opinion. It's the result of research. I posted the first few links I found, there is plenty more.

The Surveyor said:

Talking on a hands free will certainly be more distracting that not talking on a hands free, maybe more distracting than chatting to a passenger, looking at the sun-set, changing a CD, listening to the Brexit row on Jeremy Vine etc.. but for me, not enough to justify a ban. It's a given that there will be distraction whilst your driving, some will be more significant than others and most can't be regulated by Laws.

Now this is just an opinion.

The Surveyor said:

Most new cars are sold with a blue-tooth kit and trying to suggest that nobody should be allowed to use them because it 'may' be distracting to a minority of the easily distracted is a non-starter.

As with all trafgic laws we should be working to the lowest common denominator.

If the research shows it provides a significant distraction, which it does, then it should be banned. Whether it is fitted to new cars is neither here nor there.

What basis do you have to dismiss the research? Are you an acknowledged expert on the subject?

All sides of the argument are capable of ignoring the evidence if it doesn't suit.

[0000]

Devil2575 said:

Some links.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36475180

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/di...

http://www.livescience.com/37098-hands-free-phones...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoLtyqa5tEg

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/16/han...

News article.
Paywalled (did you purchase it)?
Advice page.
News article.
Can't watch youtube videos just now.

Final link a news article with a link to a paper. Small groups of people with an average age in their early 20s in Utah. Presumably almost all students. It shows a tiny (~25ms) increase in braking reaction time vs not being on a call (similar results for handsfree and not) - so small it also showed a similar improvement in reaction time when having the radio on vs having it off. Participants also increased their following distance (by more than the increase in reaction time would affect braking distance). There's no link substantiated between the altered behaviour and road safety, just a suggestion that this may have an increase.

More or less suggests that driving with a phone, whether held or not, is virtually no extra risk. I suspect it's just a poor study, it wouldn't be alone in that respect.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

Drive after being up for about 18 hours the impairment to your cognitive ability is on about a par within you were at the drink drive limit.

Obviously not true for everyone, I hope! I sleep four to five hours a night. So did someone who ran the country! (mind you so does Trump, apparently)

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

Drive after being up for about 18 hours the impairment to your cognitive ability is on about a par within you were at the drink drive limit.

Obviously not true for everyone, I hope! I sleep four to five hours a night. So did someone who ran the country! (mind you so does Trump, apparently)

But it's what the comparative research showed.

[JNW1]

0000 said:

Devil2575 said:

Some links.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36475180

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/di...

http://www.livescience.com/37098-hands-free-phones...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoLtyqa5tEg

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/16/han...

News article.
Paywalled (did you purchase it)?
Advice page.
News article.
Can't watch youtube videos just now.

Final link a news article with a link to a paper. Small groups of people with an average age in their early 20s in Utah. Presumably almost all students. It shows a tiny (~25ms) increase in braking reaction time vs not being on a call (similar results for handsfree and not) - so small it also showed a similar improvement in reaction time when having the radio on vs having it off. Participants also increased their following distance (by more than the increase in reaction time would affect braking distance). There's no link substantiated between the altered behaviour and road safety, just a suggestion that this may have an increase.

More or less suggests that driving with a phone, whether held or not, is virtually no extra risk. I suspect it's just a poor study, it wouldn't be alone in that respect.

Transport Research Laboratory credible enough for you? Their evidence suggests driver awareness is reduced significantly even if a mobile is used hands-free.....

https://trl.co.uk/news/prev/3884

[0000]

Never heard of them, I'm sure they're perfectly credible, but the evidence isn't at that link.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

But it's what the comparative research showed.

It also suggests too much sleep can be bad!

I read this...

"If they average four hours of sleep a night for four or five days, they develop the same level of cognitive impairment as if they’d been awake for 24 hours—equivalent to legal drunkenness. Within ten days, the level of impairment is the same as you’d have going 48 hours without sleep."

I have been awake several times for more than 48 hours and the older I got, I must admit, the worse it felt, but I certainly don't feel anything after sleeping for four hours a night ten days in a row! (I can do that with my eyes closed...Badum-tish) I have been that way for probably 30 years

[Devil2575]

0000 said:

Devil2575 said:

Some links.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36475180

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/di...

http://www.livescience.com/37098-hands-free-phones...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoLtyqa5tEg

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/16/han...

News article. Article about recent research
Paywalled (did you purchase it)? No.
Advice page. Not really, based on the results of research
News article. based on the results of research
Can't watch youtube videos just now.

Final link a news article with a link to a paper. Small groups of people with an average age in their early 20s in Utah. Presumably almost all students. It shows a tiny (~25ms) increase in braking reaction time vs not being on a call (similar results for handsfree and not) - so small it also showed a similar improvement in reaction time when having the radio on vs having it off. Participants also increased their following distance (by more than the increase in reaction time would affect braking distance). There's no link substantiated between the altered behaviour and road safety, just a suggestion that this may have an increase.

More or less suggests that driving with a phone, whether held or not, is virtually no extra risk. I suspect it's just a poor study, it wouldn't be alone in that respect.

Lots of research sits behind a paywall. The fact is that journals that publish research are not free and as such they don't tend to give free access. However the sheer volume of research that says that mobile phone usage has significant negative effect on driving is undeniable. All the abstracts are available and they all say the same thing.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

Experimental research shows that using mobile phones while driving leads to impaired driving, and it has been suggested that this driving impairment to a large extent is a result of cognitive, rather than physical, distractions. This notion is partly supported by empirical data showing that use of hands-free phones is associated with impaired driving in much the same way as use of hand-held phones. In the present study, accident risk when using hand-held and hands-free phones was investigated in a sample of 4307 drivers who were involved in accidents in 2007. In addition, data from a similar survey from 1997 (N = 5007) were used in order to get more observations. Relative risk was estimated using “quasi-induced exposure” in multiple-vehicle accidents. Results from the two surveys combined showed a significant increase in accident risk for hand-held mobiles and for hand-held and hands-free phones together. A non-significant tendency towards increased risk for hands-free mobiles was also detected. However, analyses of data from 2007 separately did not result in statistically significant relative risk estimates for any of the mobile types. Hand-held users were more inclined to attribute the accident to mobile phone use than were hands-free users.

http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7514/428.short

Driver's use of a mobile phone up to 10 minutes before a crash was associated with a fourfold increased likelihood of crashing (odds ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval 2.2 to 7.7, P < 0.001). Risk was raised irrespective of whether or not a hands-free device was used (hands-free: 3.8, 1.8 to 8.0, P < 0.001; hand held: 4.9, 1.6 to 15.5, P = 0.003). Increased risk was similar in men and women and in drivers aged ? 30 and < 30 years. A third (n = 21) of calls before crashes and on trips during the previous week were reportedly on hand held phones.

Conclusions: When drivers use a mobile phone there is an increased likelihood of a crash resulting in injury. Using a hands-free phone is not any safer.


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199702133...

The use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call.

Edit: The last study in my first link was done by this guy:

https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=_BuUq3...

Seems like his work has been cited quite a lot.

Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 1st February 22:13

Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 1st February 22:17

[Devil2575]

vonhosen said:

Sleep deprivation is as bad as drink drive.
Drive after being up for about 18 hours the impairment to your cognitive ability is on about a par within you were at the drink drive limit.
People who wouldn't dream of drink driving will happily drive the car after being up for 18 hours.

Indeed. However the trouble is how do you even catch a sleep deprived driver unless you actually observe poor driving? It's not like there is a roadside test for being tired. In fact the simple act of being pulled by the Police is likely to cause a rush of adrenaline that has the temporary effect of increasing alertness.

[The Surveyor]

Devil2575 said:

The Surveyor said:

There is certainly some opinion that supports your view, but for me there isn't enough to justify a change of the law IMHO. That isn't a 'smoking is safe and asbestos is wonderful' blinkered view, just that I'm naturally critical of selected opinion being presented as factual evidence to support something I don't agree with. I'm open to have my view changed but not by a couple of limited tests, an edited article from ROSPA, and a BBC article about a single tragic incident.

It's not opinion. It's the result of research. I posted the first few links I found, there is plenty more.

The Surveyor said:

Talking on a hands free will certainly be more distracting that not talking on a hands free, maybe more distracting than chatting to a passenger, looking at the sun-set, changing a CD, listening to the Brexit row on Jeremy Vine etc.. but for me, not enough to justify a ban. It's a given that there will be distraction whilst your driving, some will be more significant than others and most can't be regulated by Laws.

Now this is just an opinion.

The Surveyor said:

Most new cars are sold with a blue-tooth kit and trying to suggest that nobody should be allowed to use them because it 'may' be distracting to a minority of the easily distracted is a non-starter.

As with all trafgic laws we should be working to the lowest common denominator.

If the research shows it provides a significant distraction, which it does, then it should be banned. Whether it is fitted to new cars is neither here nor there.

What basis do you have to dismiss the research? Are you an acknowledged expert on the subject?

All sides of the argument are capable of ignoring the evidence if it doesn't suit.

Research is just the opinion of the researched based on their interpretation of their gathered data, It may be considered as informed opinion, but that doesn't make it gospel.

All traffic laws can't be based on the lowest common denominator, that would be 'not driving' any movement in a car or the very action of driving at any time carries an increased risk. If you want to avoid any driving risk, ban driving full stop.

My basis for dismissing your selected opinion based research is primary data, my own personal opinion based upon drivi many miles using a hands-free car phone and not crashing. My opinion based upon my own personal experience.

If you genuinely believe the use of hands-free phones should be banned, how would you propose that be policed, how would you suggest the police would detect such a crime without stopping people for talking to their passenger, singing along to S club, learning Spanish off a tape? How would this life-saving law be enforced?

[JNW1]

0000 said:

Never heard of them, I'm sure they're perfectly credible, but the evidence isn't at that link.

The link below may help to plug your knowledge gap but if you've never even heard of the Transport Research Laboratory it doesn't sound like you're especially well informed in this area....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Research_L...

[Devil2575]

The Surveyor said:

Research is just the opinion of the researched based on their interpretation of their gathered data, It may be considered as informed opinion, but that doesn't make it gospel.

Errr...ok then.

No it doesn't make it gospel but if there is enough research supporting a theory then it becomes pretty much accepted fact. After all you could argue that evolution is only an opinion based on interpretation of gathered data.

Opinions supported by evidence are also vastly more likely to be right than those not based on any evidence.

http://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/...

Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 1st February 22:32

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

Sleep deprivation is as bad as drink drive.
Drive after being up for about 18 hours the impairment to your cognitive ability is on about a par within you were at the drink drive limit.
People who wouldn't dream of drink driving will happily drive the car after being up for 18 hours.

And vilify those who have a drink and then drive.
That's just another example of how lacking in self-awareness most people are, and how happy they are to follow the sheep mentality if they believe they have the moral high ground.

[Red Devil]

JNW1 said:

Transport Research Laboratory credible enough for you? Their evidence suggests driver awareness is reduced significantly even if a mobile is used hands-free.....

https://trl.co.uk/news/prev/3884

0000 said:

Never heard of them, I'm sure they're perfectly credible, but the evidence isn't at that link.

Says the person who is more interested in rubbishing what others have posted instead of doing some basic research of his own.
Less than 30 seconds on that site and I found this - https://trl.co.uk/reports/TRL664

Go figure.

[0000]

Red Devil said:

Less than 30 seconds on that site and I found this - https://trl.co.uk/reports/TRL664

A paper that doesn't compare being on a phone hands free with holding a phone?

Well done.

[0000]

Devil2575 said:

Lots of research sits behind a paywall. The fact is that journals that publish research are not free and as such they don't tend to give free access. However the sheer volume of research that says that mobile phone usage has significant negative effect on driving is undeniable. All the abstracts are available and they all say the same thing.

Varies by field I find. Projects like arxiv are getting more traction. You can't reasonably critique an abstract.

Devil2575 said:

http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7514/428.short

Driver's use of a mobile phone up to 10 minutes before a crash was associated with a fourfold increased likelihood of crashing (odds ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval 2.2 to 7.7, P < 0.001). Risk was raised irrespective of whether or not a hands-free device was used (hands-free: 3.8, 1.8 to 8.0, P < 0.001; hand held: 4.9, 1.6 to 15.5, P = 0.003). Increased risk was similar in men and women and in drivers aged ? 30 and < 30 years. A third (n = 21) of calls before crashes and on trips during the previous week were reportedly on hand held phones.

Conclusions: When drivers use a mobile phone there is an increased likelihood of a crash resulting in injury. Using a hands-free phone is not any safer.

This one is evidence I'd agree lends some support to the case that hands free is not dissimilar in risk to hand held, although the confidence interval makes it difficult to claim it's not safer with any certainty. There are (reasonable) caveats too.

They said:

If there was a hands-free device in the vehicle, irrespective of its use during the hazard and control periods, this was considered as hands-free phone use.

They said:

The sample size was not large enough to assess whether certain types of hands-free devices, including fully hands-free, might be safer than other types.

[pim]

And I suppose it depends on the call also.If it's a short I be home in ten minutes.Or a long call maybe business. Or a argument on the phone concentration is bound to affect driving.

[JNW1]

0000 said:

Red Devil said:

Less than 30 seconds on that site and I found this - https://trl.co.uk/reports/TRL664

A paper that doesn't compare being on a phone hands free with holding a phone?

Well done.

I think there's a general acceptance that the use of hand-held mobiles is a distraction whilst driving, the debate is more around whether that applies to hands-free use as well and the paper in question suggests it is (albeit not with a huge sample size). Other than anecdotal comments from individual drivers I've yet to see any evidence that indicates otherwise and my own personal experience is certainly consistent with the TRL findings (which is why I keep mobile use in the car to a minimum even though I have hands-free and controls for the phone on the steering wheel).

I honestly don't understand those who compare it to listening to the radio or talking to a passenger - the level of distraction associated with talking on a mobile is of a completely different magnitude IMO.

[JNW1]

pim said:

And I suppose it depends on the call also.If it's a short I be home in ten minutes.Or a long call maybe business. Or a argument on the phone concentration is bound to affect driving.

Very true and it also depends on where you'e driving - arguably less of a problem on a quiet stretch of motorway than if you're negotiating busy traffic!

[0000]

JNW1 said:

I honestly don't understand those who compare it to listening to the radio or talking to a passenger - the level of distraction associated with talking on a mobile is of a completely different magnitude IMO.

I'd agree it feels intuitively like it is a higher level of distraction, the leap for me is how that level of distraction translates into real world risk and whether it compares to handsheld. The methodology chosen by this paper deals with that well. It's worth a read.

Devil2575 said:

http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7514/428.short