Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[JNW1]

0000 said:

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

For understandable reasons some recent accidents have focused attention on the use of hand-held mobiles but personally I think there's a huge elephant in the room in the form of hands-free use. Lots of people jump on the bandwagon and vilify hand-held use but then defend to the hilt the use of devices if they're hands-free; however, I'd contend they're still a significant distraction and the available evidence and research seems to support that view. Therefore, it just seems to me that this fixation with hand-held use means we're only tackling part of the problem and, while hands-free use would be an uncomfortable and difficult nettle for the authorities to grasp, if they're serious about road safety I'm not sure how they can just turn a blind eye when the practice apparently carries a similar risk to drink driving?

[The Surveyor]

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.

Maybe you need to trust your own instinct rather than listening to third party research. If you are distracted by the use of a hands free kit, don't use it. If you are comfortable to use it occasionally (albeit limited) then you are using your own judgement which is just how it should be. As I've said before, I'm perfectly comfortable to talk on the phone whilst driving and I'm perfectly comfortable to stop the call if there are other things happening around me that need more attention such as bad weather, busy traffic or the need to concentrate on navigation.

Remember, the use of a hands free phone is perfectly legal, there is no law against it unlike driving with a hand-held phone pressed against your ear. That tells me that those who matter don't agree with any of the opinion based 'research' however much anecdotal evidence that produces, or however many times those limited sample tests are run.

Also, back to my earlier question, how would you police it? In fact ignore the rest of my opinion, I'd like to know how such a ban could ever be policed?

[JNW1]

The Surveyor said:

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.

Maybe you need to trust your own instinct rather than listening to third party research. If you are distracted by the use of a hands free kit, don't use it. If you are comfortable to use it occasionally (albeit limited) then you are using your own judgement which is just how it should be. As I've said before, I'm perfectly comfortable to talk on the phone whilst driving and I'm perfectly comfortable to stop the call if there are other things happening around me that need more attention such as bad weather, busy traffic or the need to concentrate on navigation.

Remember, the use of a hands free phone is perfectly legal, there is no law against it unlike driving with a hand-held phone pressed against your ear. That tells me that those who matter don't agree with any of the opinion based 'research' however much anecdotal evidence that produces, or however many times those limited sample tests are run.

Also, back to my earlier question, how would you police it? In fact ignore the rest of my opinion, I'd like to know how such a ban could ever be policed?

The thrust of your argument seems to be that hand-held use is wrong because it's illegal whereas hand-free use is fine because it isn't. However, I think what determines whether the use is right or wrong ought to be whether it causes a significant distraction and my view - which the available research and evidence seems to support - is that both forms of use fall into that category. I'm also not convinced the fact hands-free is legal means those who matter agree it's ok; probably more a case of it being a difficult and potentially unpopular nettle for them to grasp!

Part of that difficulty would indeed be around enforcement but if it was made illegal - and phone records had to be made available after an accident - it would surely be quite easy to impose an automatic fine and points if someone was shown to have been on their mobile around the time of the incident? If insurers said they would void anyone's insurance in those circumstances that would probably help to concentrate people's minds as well!

Speaking personally I'll abide by the law where mobile use is concerned which means I'll use my phone hands-free when driving but, because I think it's a distraction, I'll keep that use to an absolute minimum. However, if someone changed the law to make hands-free use illegal it would get no complaints from me!

[The Surveyor]

JNW1 said:

The thrust of your argument seems to be that hand-held use is wrong because it's illegal whereas hand-free use is fine because it isn't.

No what I'm saying is, I don't believe your 'research' and neither do those who's job it is to make the roads safer. It's that simple.

JNW1 said:

Part of that difficulty would indeed be around enforcement but if it was made illegal - and phone records had to be made available after an accident - it would surely be quite easy to impose an automatic fine and points if someone was shown to have been on their mobile around the time of the incident? If insurers said they would void anyone's insurance in those circumstances that would probably help to concentrate people's minds as well!

So you are confirming that it's impossible to enforce in a preventative way. Only after an accident where there would be little evidence that the driver was being 'distracted' by the phone, something that happens already where it's taken into consideration during prosecutions.

JNW1 said:

Speaking personally I'll abide by the law where mobile use is concerned which means I'll use my phone hands-free when driving but, because I think it's a distraction, I'll keep that use to an absolute minimum. However, if someone changed the law to make hands-free use illegal it would get no complaints from me!

Now you have lost the plot. You're argument is that the use of hand-free kits is a hazard, but that you don't believe your own presented data enough to stop doing it yourself.

Back on topic, I still believe SAC's are better that points and a fine for marginal speeding.

[Devil2575]

The Surveyor said:

JNW1 said:

The thrust of your argument seems to be that hand-held use is wrong because it's illegal whereas hand-free use is fine because it isn't.

No what I'm saying is, I don't believe your 'research' and neither do those who's job it is to make the roads safer. It's that simple.

Is that the case or is it that the political implications of imposing a band on all mobile use is unplalatable?

Either way, I don't care if people agree with it or not. There is some research that shows that hands free is as bad as hand held, there is no real data to show that it isn't.

People seem to think that they can selectively ignore scientific research if they don't like it. This is irrational.

[Devil2575]

JNW1 said:

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.

Also, from the above link:

It is concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than these other common in-vehicle distractions.

[JNW1]

The Surveyor said:

JNW1 said:

The thrust of your argument seems to be that hand-held use is wrong because it's illegal whereas hand-free use is fine because it isn't.

No what I'm saying is, I don't believe your 'research' and neither do those who's job it is to make the roads safer. It's that simple.

It's not my research, I didn't commission any of it; I do however think it's credible and it's also coming from more than one source. I also think it's a leap of faith to say the people whose job it is to make our roads safer don't believe the research - not quite sure how to deal with it effectively is probably closer to the mark!

However, on what grounds are you dismissing the various reports and research which suggest the use of hands-free devices is distracting; do you have any evidence to refute this other than the fact you've never crashed when using your mobile? Thankfully neither have I but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate how distracting hands-free mobile use can be!

The Surveyor said:

JNW1 said:

Part of that difficulty would indeed be around enforcement but if it was made illegal - and phone records had to be made available after an accident - it would surely be quite easy to impose an automatic fine and points if someone was shown to have been on their mobile around the time of the incident? If insurers said they would void anyone's insurance in those circumstances that would probably help to concentrate people's minds as well!

So you are confirming that it's impossible to enforce in a preventative way. Only after an accident where there would be little evidence that the driver was being 'distracted' by the phone, something that happens already where it's taken into consideration during prosecutions.

I agree it would be difficult to prevent the use of hands-free mobiles but to be honest you can't prevent the use of hand-held mobiles either - it's certainly easier to spot when a transgression's taking place but that requires the presence of either a police officer or a camera and hence I suspect many instances of use will still go undetected. However, I do think the potential consequences of being found to have been using a mobile hands-free illegally would be a deterrent for many; most law abiding drivers are unlikely to want to take the risk of their insurance not paying out and I suspect many wouldn't wouldn't want to risk fines/points either. So a blunt instrument certainly but then that applies to a lot of other traffic law enforcement as well.

The Surveyor said:

JNW1 said:

Speaking personally I'll abide by the law where mobile use is concerned which means I'll use my phone hands-free when driving but, because I think it's a distraction, I'll keep that use to an absolute minimum. However, if someone changed the law to make hands-free use illegal it would get no complaints from me!

Now you have lost the plot. You're argument is that the use of hand-free kits is a hazard, but that you don't believe your own presented data enough to stop doing it yourself.

At the moment I use a mobile hands-free when I consider it safe to do so; however, I'm very aware of how distracting it can be and for that reason I use my phone whilst driving infrequently and only for relatively short calls. So fundamentally I do believe the research and try to use my mobile accordingly; however, I know not all users are the same as in a previous job I used to see the mobile phone data and it was very evident some people used time in the car to make phone calls (often quite lengthy ones). Therefore, if the authorities decided that hands-free use was a significant distraction and made it illegal I would be quite happy to forego the small amount of convenience it affords me because I can well imagine that in the bigger picture the safety benefit would be justified.

I already accept that sometimes I can't drive as fast as I'd like because some people can't be trusted to choose an appropriate speed and frankly that annoys me far more than potentially losing the ability to talk on my phone in the car occasionally. I rather suspect the people who spend ages chatting on their phone in their car are often the same ones who can't choose an appropriate speed for the conditions but that's pure speculation on my part!

The Surveyor said:

Back on topic, I still believe SAC's are better that points and a fine for marginal speeding.

On this point we do at least agree although I think the pursuit of convictions on relatively safe roads does little or nothing to improve safety!

[The Surveyor]

Devil2575 said:

The Surveyor said:

JNW1 said:

The thrust of your argument seems to be that hand-held use is wrong because it's illegal whereas hand-free use is fine because it isn't.

No what I'm saying is, I don't believe your 'research' and neither do those who's job it is to make the roads safer. It's that simple.

Is that the case or is it that the political implications of imposing a band on all mobile use is unplalatable?

That's a whole new level of tin-foil hat lunacy, it's now a political conspiracy...

People seem to think that they can selectively ignore scientific research if they don't like it. This is irrational.

Come on Mr Logic, you need to accept the fact than nobody who matters has given any credibility to the 'research' and that's why it is still perfectly legal to drive whilst using a hands-free mobile phone. Last week the 'scientific' research proved that eating over-cooked chips or roast potatoes caused cancer, do you want them banning as well?

[anonymous-user]

Probably already said, but a brilliant way for the waifs and strays of the training 'profession' to earn a fortune by setting up crap courses courtesy of the legislation.

As I said at mine, I'm already proficient at being aware of speeding so they should be called 'slow awareness courses'

[JNW1]

The Surveyor said:

Devil2575 said:

The Surveyor said:

JNW1 said:

The thrust of your argument seems to be that hand-held use is wrong because it's illegal whereas hand-free use is fine because it isn't.

No what I'm saying is, I don't believe your 'research' and neither do those who's job it is to make the roads safer. It's that simple.

Is that the case or is it that the political implications of imposing a band on all mobile use is unplalatable?

That's a whole new level of tin-foil hat lunacy, it's now a political conspiracy...

People seem to think that they can selectively ignore scientific research if they don't like it. This is irrational.

Come on Mr Logic, you need to accept the fact than nobody who matters has given any credibility to the 'research' and that's why it is still perfectly legal to drive whilst using a hands-free mobile phone. Last week the 'scientific' research proved that eating over-cooked chips or roast potatoes caused cancer, do you want them banning as well?

Not a political conspiracy, more a hot potato most politicians wouldn't want to touch!

I realise you don't accept the research which suggests hands-free use is little if any different from hands-held use in terms of level of driver distraction; however, if the evidence became irrefutable what would your attitude be? Would you still be saying hands-free should remain legal and if so on what basis - purely because transgressions of the law would be difficult to detect until after an accident?

[The Surveyor]

JNW1 said:

Not a political conspiracy, more a hot potato most politicians wouldn't want to touch!

I realise you don't accept the research which suggests hands-free use is little if any different from hands-held use in terms of level of driver distraction; however, if the evidence became irrefutable what would your attitude be? Would you still be saying hands-free should remain legal and if so on what basis - purely because transgressions of the law would be difficult to detect until after an accident?

Nice reference to hot potato's

Seriously, If they made hands-free mobile use whilst driving illegal, I wouldn't do it. It's not currently illegal so I'll carry on using my own judgement on it.

[Devil2575]

The Surveyor said:

Devil2575 said:

Is that the case or is it that the political implications of imposing a band on all mobile use is unplalatable?

That's a whole new level of tin-foil hat lunacy, it's now a political conspiracy...

No, I'm simply saying that there could be another explanation. However it is hardly tin-foil hat lunacy to suggest that the government may shy away from legislation because it would be politically unpalatable

The Surveyor said:

Devil2575 said:

People seem to think that they can selectively ignore scientific research if they don't like it. This is irrational.

Come on Mr Logic, you need to accept the fact than nobody who matters has given any credibility to the 'research' and that's why it is still perfectly legal to drive whilst using a hands-free mobile phone. Last week the 'scientific' research proved that eating over-cooked chips or roast potatoes caused cancer, do you want them banning as well?

I have accepted it, all I'm saying is that isn't a reason for me, or you, to say that the research is worthless. Government have a good record of igoring experts when they tell them stuff they don't want to hear. How a government responds to science has no bearing on the quality of the science IMHO.

Lots of things cause cancer. Did you actually read the research or just the media reporting of it?

How do you ban overcooked food?

Do you object to research telling us that overcooked chips and roast potatoes can cause cancer?

[Mill Wheel]

V6Pushfit said:

Probably already said, but a brilliant way for the waifs and strays of the training 'profession' to earn a fortune by setting up crap courses courtesy of the legislation.

As I said at mine, I'm already proficient at being aware of speeding so they should be called 'slow awareness courses'

The way I see it, is that if they DO WORK, then everybody should be doing a course every few years after passing their test, but if they DON'T WORK, then it is simply a scheme that takes advantage of drivers desperately wanting a clean license, and milking them in a manner that sees the money divded up between quack course providers, and the facilitators.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35170779

[vonhosen]

Mill Wheel said:

V6Pushfit said:

Probably already said, but a brilliant way for the waifs and strays of the training 'profession' to earn a fortune by setting up crap courses courtesy of the legislation.

As I said at mine, I'm already proficient at being aware of speeding so they should be called 'slow awareness courses'

The way I see it, is that if they DO WORK, then everybody should be doing a course every few years after passing their test, but if they DON'T WORK, then it is simply a scheme that takes advantage of drivers desperately wanting a clean license, and milking them in a manner that sees the money divded up between quack course providers, and the facilitators.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35170779

That's a bit like saying if fines work then everybody should be fined irrespective of whether they've been caught committing an offence or not.
Why should people who haven't been identified as having a problem be forced to do a course because it worked for those that were identified as having a problem & addressed that problem?

[JGJC]

what annoys is that I was booked for doing five mph over the 40 limit (guilty, genuinely thought I was in a 50 mph zone) and awaiting punishment,however, in the last 3 year period on two occasions burglars have attempted to enter my home during the night, on phoning the police was asked to turn on my lights, very helpful! and on another occasion a burglar was actually caught in my conservatory by the police at 3 am!, trying to get into the main house, and a few days later let him go, saying "he thought he was in a friends house!" where is the balance? I do not condone speeding or bad driving but where is it all going? motorists are an easy nick.

[Silverage]

JGJC said:

what annoys is that I was booked for doing five mph over the 40 limit (guilty, genuinely thought I was in a 50 mph zone) and awaiting punishment,however, in the last 3 year period on two occasions burglars have attempted to enter my home during the night, on phoning the police was asked to turn on my lights, very helpful! and on another occasion a burglar was actually caught in my conservatory by the police at 3 am!, trying to get into the main house, and a few days later let him go, saying "he thought he was in a friends house!" where is the balance? I do not condone speeding or bad driving but where is it all going? motorists are an easy nick.

This always gets me. Of the hundreds of laws the police are charged with enforcing I think speeding is the only one where they regularly devote resources to setting up shop with expensive, dedicated detection equipment and waiting for an offender to come along. I'm sure this is only because it's so easy to extract payment from motorists, without any personal interaction in the vast majority of occassions.

I've no objection to the police enforcing the law in this way, but they should be more honest about why they do it. How many men in vans with cameras do they have sitting in burglary hotspots for example?

[vonhosen]

Silverage said:

JGJC said:

what annoys is that I was booked for doing five mph over the 40 limit (guilty, genuinely thought I was in a 50 mph zone) and awaiting punishment,however, in the last 3 year period on two occasions burglars have attempted to enter my home during the night, on phoning the police was asked to turn on my lights, very helpful! and on another occasion a burglar was actually caught in my conservatory by the police at 3 am!, trying to get into the main house, and a few days later let him go, saying "he thought he was in a friends house!" where is the balance? I do not condone speeding or bad driving but where is it all going? motorists are an easy nick.

This always gets me. Of the hundreds of laws the police are charged with enforcing I think speeding is the only one where they regularly devote resources to setting up shop with expensive, dedicated detection equipment and waiting for an offender to come along. I'm sure this is only because it's so easy to extract payment from motorists, without any personal interaction in the vast majority of occassions.

I've no objection to the police enforcing the law in this way, but they should be more honest about why they do it. How many men in vans with cameras do they have sitting in burglary hotspots for example?

They direct a lot more resources into surveillance of terrorists & serious criminals etc.
The way a lot of traffic offences are dealt with means that they effectively fund their own enforcement. That isn't the Police's fault, that's the mechanisms that are put in place by politicians.

Some offences are also strict liability offences & as such they are a black/white issue & are very easy to enforce/prove. Others aren't so you may, for instance, be required to prove intent behind an action not just an action.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

Why should people who haven't been identified as having a problem be forced to do a course because it worked for those that were identified as having a problem & addressed that problem?

You mean like the entire CPC / refresher courses / H&S industry does?

Absolute scam, most of it.

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

Why should people who haven't been identified as having a problem be forced to do a course because it worked for those that were identified as having a problem & addressed that problem?

You mean like the entire CPC / refresher courses / H&S industry does?

Absolute scam, most of it.

Those are a professional/industry qualification & employer's liabilities to ensure that their staff are adequately trained in the tools they use within the work place, what I'm talking about is a course being offered in lieu of prosecution as a result of offending.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

Those are a professional/industry qualification & employer's liabilities to ensure that their staff are adequately trained in the tools they use within the work place, what I'm talking about is a course being offered in lieu of prosecution as a result of offending.

Which means for those with no history of incident and despite having qualifications to show they can use their equipment etc, they have to do exactly as you suggest and are forced to do courses for life.

Just because that's the way things are, doesn't make it right.