Mobile phone use crackdown
Discussion
ferrariF50lover said:
nonsequitur said:
200 people killed or seriously injured in mobile phone incidents in 2015. Why are we still discussing this?
And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
Assuming your figure of 200 is correct...And, more disturbingly, ways to get around the mobile phone laws.
200 of 23,869 or 0.83% of all KSI in 2015.
A total of 317,000,000,000 passenger miles were travelled on private transport in 2015, meaning one KSI per 1,585,000,000 miles. Thus, one could drive from here to Saturn while on the phone and be statistically likely to kill or seriously injure just a single person.
In 2001, 311 people were killed or seriously injured by... Birdbaths.
In 2010, 290 people were killed (no word on injuries) by falling out of bed.
A law enforcing futon purchase upon citizens would save considerably more lives than banning mobile phone use behind the wheel. A ban on the sale of peanuts would save more lives in a week than the mobile ban does in a year. A cigarette ban would (I'm guessing now) save more lives in 18 seconds than the mobile ban does in a year.
Edited by nonsequitur on Wednesday 1st February 19:32
swisstoni said:
You can't see the similarity? A specious argument for something that is obviously unsafe?
I saw someone holding their phone up in front of them as they drove along with their young daughter next to them, last week. She was scrolling through the f
king thing.
And yet nothing happened, I'll guess?I saw someone holding their phone up in front of them as they drove along with their young daughter next to them, last week. She was scrolling through the f
king thing.You've not taken in a thing I've said. Everything is unsafe. Everything is measured in degrees of unsafeness.
You say specious, but I'm the only one using actual facts here. Proper numbers. The statistics as opposed to a gut-feeling.
It seems like it should be horrendously dangerous, but the statistics, the numbers, the provable facts tell us that one must travel a staggering distance before being at risk of causing a death or serious injury as a result of using a mobile phone while driving.
I'm sorry that it doesn't fit in with your narrative. I apologise that your in-built danger-o-meter has been shown as faulty on this occasion. This is one of those clickbait style Oh-Em-Gee facts which will 'blow your mind'.
I'm not responsible for the numbers, they are not of my making. Continuing to blithely contend that 'obviously it's dangerous' in spite of the facts which show conclusively (if counter-intuitively) that it's not, particularly, isn't really doing that side of the discussion any real favours.
I had no preconceptions coming into this.
Having found for myself some facts, I would be interested to hear a cogent reposte, if you (or anyone else) has one.
Rick101 said:
Something to note, company I work for has a very strict rule on no mobile use when driving, handS free or not. The science shows it is dangerous and if found to be flouting that rule you are likely to be in dismissed. The company has around 35000 employees iirc so not a small business by any account.
Just to make you smile, a company I do some work for has similar rules, they still expect to be able to contact their contractors almost 24/7.Edited by Rick101 on Wednesday 1st February 12:01
ferrariF50lover said:
swisstoni said:
You can't see the similarity? A specious argument for something that is obviously unsafe?
I saw someone holding their phone up in front of them as they drove along with their young daughter next to them, last week. She was scrolling through the fking thing.
And yet nothing happened, I'll guess?I saw someone holding their phone up in front of them as they drove along with their young daughter next to them, last week. She was scrolling through the f
king thing.You've not taken in a thing I've said. Everything is unsafe. Everything is measured in degrees of unsafeness.
You say specious, but I'm the only one using actual facts here. Proper numbers. The statistics as opposed to a gut-feeling.
It seems like it should be horrendously dangerous, but the statistics, the numbers, the provable facts tell us that one must travel a staggering distance before being at risk of causing a death or serious injury as a result of using a mobile phone while driving.
I'm sorry that it doesn't fit in with your narrative. I apologise that your in-built danger-o-meter has been shown as faulty on this occasion. This is one of those clickbait style Oh-Em-Gee facts which will 'blow your mind'.
I'm not responsible for the numbers, they are not of my making. Continuing to blithely contend that 'obviously it's dangerous' in spite of the facts which show conclusively (if counter-intuitively) that it's not, particularly, isn't really doing that side of the discussion any real favours.
I had no preconceptions coming into this.
Having found for myself some facts, I would be interested to hear a cogent reposte, if you (or anyone else) has one.
I guess there are less people covering for the actions of people who fall out of bed & moving what they could hit out of their way.
I'm going to stick my neck on the line and say I struggle with not using the phone in the car.
Base headphones die so it goes loudspeaker into my hoodie.
Been on a course, the threat of points or a ban wouldn't change my mind but I try my very best to leave the phone in the back and leave the headphones charges so I can answer by hitting the headphones and dial via voice.
If it is a serious problem there just isn't the forces to deal with it.
Inb4 the slating.
Base headphones die so it goes loudspeaker into my hoodie.
Been on a course, the threat of points or a ban wouldn't change my mind but I try my very best to leave the phone in the back and leave the headphones charges so I can answer by hitting the headphones and dial via voice.
If it is a serious problem there just isn't the forces to deal with it.
Inb4 the slating.
Josho said:
I'm going to stick my neck on the line and say I struggle with not using the phone in the car.
Base headphones die so it goes loudspeaker into my hoodie.
Been on a course, the threat of points or a ban wouldn't change my mind but I try my very best to leave the phone in the back and leave the headphones charges so I can answer by hitting the headphones and dial via voice.
If it is a serious problem there just isn't the forces to deal with it.
Inb4 the slating.
I hope you remember your quote if the shoe is on the other foot and it affects you or a family member.Base headphones die so it goes loudspeaker into my hoodie.
Been on a course, the threat of points or a ban wouldn't change my mind but I try my very best to leave the phone in the back and leave the headphones charges so I can answer by hitting the headphones and dial via voice.
If it is a serious problem there just isn't the forces to deal with it.
Inb4 the slating.
The problem is people not phones.
Edited by SEE YA on Wednesday 1st February 22:36
SEE YA said:
I hope you remember your quote if the shoe is on the other foot and it affects you or a family member.
The problem is people not phones.
Definitely. The problem is people not phones.
Edited by SEE YA on Wednesday 1st February 22:36
I'm flat out busy, only time my hands aren't full and I can speak on the phone is in the car.
This affects more than driving so my solution is getting a secretary.
Just trying to show a different side of the coin, I'm not justifying my actions, totally wrong to use the phone behind the wheel.
ferrariF50lover said:
swisstoni said:
You can't see the similarity? A specious argument for something that is obviously unsafe?
I saw someone holding their phone up in front of them as they drove along with their young daughter next to them, last week. She was scrolling through the fking thing.
And yet nothing happened, I'll guess?I saw someone holding their phone up in front of them as they drove along with their young daughter next to them, last week. She was scrolling through the f
king thing.You've not taken in a thing I've said. Everything is unsafe. Everything is measured in degrees of unsafeness.
You say specious, but I'm the only one using actual facts here. Proper numbers. The statistics as opposed to a gut-feeling.
It seems like it should be horrendously dangerous, but the statistics, the numbers, the provable facts tell us that one must travel a staggering distance before being at risk of causing a death or serious injury as a result of using a mobile phone while driving.
I'm sorry that it doesn't fit in with your narrative. I apologise that your in-built danger-o-meter has been shown as faulty on this occasion. This is one of those clickbait style Oh-Em-Gee facts which will 'blow your mind'.
I'm not responsible for the numbers, they are not of my making. Continuing to blithely contend that 'obviously it's dangerous' in spite of the facts which show conclusively (if counter-intuitively) that it's not, particularly, isn't really doing that side of the discussion any real favours.
I had no preconceptions coming into this.
Having found for myself some facts, I would be interested to hear a cogent reposte, if you (or anyone else) has one.
There are, however, a couple of issues to consider. What is the related data that's number is from within? You mention how many miles there needs to be for there to be a phone-related KSI, but how many of those miles are whilst people are on the phone? There's no risk of a phone-related KSI when a typical person will spend most of their time not on the phone. That's quite an important context which is hard to measure.
That links me to my next point; road traffic legalisation is prohibitive in nature. It wants to stop the event rather than pick up the pieces. Whether that's punishment for a vehicle in dangerous condition, drink driving or mobile phone use. What prohibitive effect does the legislation have? What effect does it have on phone-drive miles? Does it greatly reduce it? Or do very little for those whom want to use the phone? This is even harder to measure, as is the nature of preventive measures.
The evidence concludes that mobile phone use increases the risk when driving. It, unlike the bigger causes of road deaths (misjudgement etc), is deliberate in nature and is something that can be targeted so it makes sense from a point of view of trying to reduce road deaths further. However, in the rational grand scheme of things there are lots more things to worry about.
Can't the problem really. Use a hand held mobile, breaking the law, may be fined, use hands free, do not break the law.
There are probably as many reasons in people's mind why we should be able to hold a phone to ear as the reasons why you shouldn't.
I can't see the law changing. You could probably show stats that more are killed in a 30 by cars doing 30 than those doing 40 in 30, but the law is unlikely to change.
There are probably as many reasons in people's mind why we should be able to hold a phone to ear as the reasons why you shouldn't.
I can't see the law changing. You could probably show stats that more are killed in a 30 by cars doing 30 than those doing 40 in 30, but the law is unlikely to change.
Nigel Worc's said:
Just to make you smile, a company I do some work for has similar rules, they still expect to be able to contact their contractors almost 24/7.
Not in our case. Applies to all. I'm not sure whether it includes contractor to contractor calls when working for us though. Not sure we would have a remit over that.La Liga said:
aking deaths by themselves (where the investigation is going to be more comprehensive) linked to mobile phones, it was 67 between 2012-2014 from 5430 (1.23%). A death could have still occurred without the phone, but it'll be defined as at least a contributory factory. That is a low % of total deaths and objective the risk of me being killed by someone using a phone is very low as things stand.
There are, however, a couple of issues to consider. What is the related data that's number is from within? You mention how many miles there needs to be for there to be a phone-related KSI, but how many of those miles are whilst people are on the phone? There's no risk of a phone-related KSI when a typical person will spend most of their time not on the phone. That's quite an important context which is hard to measure.
That links me to my next point; road traffic legalisation is prohibitive in nature. It wants to stop the event rather than pick up the pieces. Whether that's punishment for a vehicle in dangerous condition, drink driving or mobile phone use. What prohibitive effect does the legislation have? What effect does it have on phone-drive miles? Does it greatly reduce it? Or do very little for those whom want to use the phone? This is even harder to measure, as is the nature of preventive measures.
The evidence concludes that mobile phone use increases the risk when driving. It, unlike the bigger causes of road deaths (misjudgement etc), is deliberate in nature and is something that can be targeted so it makes sense from a point of view of trying to reduce road deaths further. However, in the rational grand scheme of things there are lots more things to worry about.
This explains rather neatly why we ought to have preventative legislation against mobile phone use while driving. What it doesn't support (and I accept it was never intended so to do) are the calls from some on here to introduce draconian punishment for transgressors. There are, however, a couple of issues to consider. What is the related data that's number is from within? You mention how many miles there needs to be for there to be a phone-related KSI, but how many of those miles are whilst people are on the phone? There's no risk of a phone-related KSI when a typical person will spend most of their time not on the phone. That's quite an important context which is hard to measure.
That links me to my next point; road traffic legalisation is prohibitive in nature. It wants to stop the event rather than pick up the pieces. Whether that's punishment for a vehicle in dangerous condition, drink driving or mobile phone use. What prohibitive effect does the legislation have? What effect does it have on phone-drive miles? Does it greatly reduce it? Or do very little for those whom want to use the phone? This is even harder to measure, as is the nature of preventive measures.
The evidence concludes that mobile phone use increases the risk when driving. It, unlike the bigger causes of road deaths (misjudgement etc), is deliberate in nature and is something that can be targeted so it makes sense from a point of view of trying to reduce road deaths further. However, in the rational grand scheme of things there are lots more things to worry about.
One addendum I would make in a general context is that prohibitive legislation must overcome an immediate deficit in the cost:benefit ratio. I will contend that mobile phone use conveys enormous benefit to the economy, business prosperity, overall happiness, reduced stress and frustration and a host of other things.
As with all things, there is a cost to that. As you have stated (I'll take it as read), that cost was 67 lives between 2012 and 2014. I shan't rehash the list of things which have killed a greater number of people than this, but it seems to me that none of these brings quite the advantages that mobile phone use behind the wheel might.
I wonder whether, to take a bold step, all things considered, 30 or so lives a year isn't a price worth paying?
Vipers said:
Can't the problem really. Use a hand held mobile, breaking the law, may be fined, use hands free, do not break the law.
Yep and in doing so it's no worse than talking to a passenger yet we have a stream of people on here who want the use of them banned altogether even going as far as having them become disabled when they are inside a vehicle. I assume these people are genuinely unable to multiplex therefore want the whole world to kowtow to their stupidity! If you can't talk and drive at the same time then don't, but some of us can so leave us alone. The ban culture in the UK has got beyond a joke. ferrariF50lover said:
La Liga said:
aking deaths by themselves (where the investigation is going to be more comprehensive) linked to mobile phones, it was 67 between 2012-2014 from 5430 (1.23%). A death could have still occurred without the phone, but it'll be defined as at least a contributory factory. That is a low % of total deaths and objective the risk of me being killed by someone using a phone is very low as things stand.
There are, however, a couple of issues to consider. What is the related data that's number is from within? You mention how many miles there needs to be for there to be a phone-related KSI, but how many of those miles are whilst people are on the phone? There's no risk of a phone-related KSI when a typical person will spend most of their time not on the phone. That's quite an important context which is hard to measure.
That links me to my next point; road traffic legalisation is prohibitive in nature. It wants to stop the event rather than pick up the pieces. Whether that's punishment for a vehicle in dangerous condition, drink driving or mobile phone use. What prohibitive effect does the legislation have? What effect does it have on phone-drive miles? Does it greatly reduce it? Or do very little for those whom want to use the phone? This is even harder to measure, as is the nature of preventive measures.
The evidence concludes that mobile phone use increases the risk when driving. It, unlike the bigger causes of road deaths (misjudgement etc), is deliberate in nature and is something that can be targeted so it makes sense from a point of view of trying to reduce road deaths further. However, in the rational grand scheme of things there are lots more things to worry about.
This explains rather neatly why we ought to have preventative legislation against mobile phone use while driving. What it doesn't support (and I accept it was never intended so to do) are the calls from some on here to introduce draconian punishment for transgressors. There are, however, a couple of issues to consider. What is the related data that's number is from within? You mention how many miles there needs to be for there to be a phone-related KSI, but how many of those miles are whilst people are on the phone? There's no risk of a phone-related KSI when a typical person will spend most of their time not on the phone. That's quite an important context which is hard to measure.
That links me to my next point; road traffic legalisation is prohibitive in nature. It wants to stop the event rather than pick up the pieces. Whether that's punishment for a vehicle in dangerous condition, drink driving or mobile phone use. What prohibitive effect does the legislation have? What effect does it have on phone-drive miles? Does it greatly reduce it? Or do very little for those whom want to use the phone? This is even harder to measure, as is the nature of preventive measures.
The evidence concludes that mobile phone use increases the risk when driving. It, unlike the bigger causes of road deaths (misjudgement etc), is deliberate in nature and is something that can be targeted so it makes sense from a point of view of trying to reduce road deaths further. However, in the rational grand scheme of things there are lots more things to worry about.
One addendum I would make in a general context is that prohibitive legislation must overcome an immediate deficit in the cost:benefit ratio. I will contend that mobile phone use conveys enormous benefit to the economy, business prosperity, overall happiness, reduced stress and frustration and a host of other things.
As with all things, there is a cost to that. As you have stated (I'll take it as read), that cost was 67 lives between 2012 and 2014. I shan't rehash the list of things which have killed a greater number of people than this, but it seems to me that none of these brings quite the advantages that mobile phone use behind the wheel might.
I wonder whether, to take a bold step, all things considered, 30 or so lives a year isn't a price worth paying?
cb1965 said:
Vipers said:
Can't the problem really. Use a hand held mobile, breaking the law, may be fined, use hands free, do not break the law.
Yep and in doing so it's no worse than talking to a passenger yet we have a stream of people on here who want the use of them banned altogether even going as far as having them become disabled when they are inside a vehicle. I assume these people are genuinely unable to multiplex therefore want the whole world to kowtow to their stupidity! If you can't talk and drive at the same time then don't, but some of us can so leave us alone. The ban culture in the UK has got beyond a joke. Right!!! This is one of these topics that could go on forever in circles.
I am old enough to remember the early mobile phones and how they were used; and I believe the problem now is technology. There is nothing more completely misrepresentative of a description than calling the modern device a phone. It's not a phone; it's a miniature computer, the phone facility of which is only a tiny part of the device's features. And therein lies the problem.
Who remembers the early Motorola, affectionately known as the brick, with the aerial sticking out through the top? This was simply a phone and nothing else. It had one button memory to enable you to simply pick it up and press one button to make a call, which you could do easily with one hand. There was much less distraction doing that than for example fiddling with the stereo or the heater controls.
Phone use then of course, was desperately restricted to where you could get a signal. In the Western Isles for example it was common to see people huddled together in a wee spot in the middle of nowhere with phones stuck to their ears because it was the only place on the island you could find a signal!
I think the danger now is not the aspect of being distracted by a conversation, I don't buy into that despite the research claims. It is texting, being on the internet, setting up a route using satnav, and all the other seriously distracting features on the modern device. Combine this with the other ludicrously complex, and potentially dangerous, dash designs, the BMW 7 Series with iDrive is at the top of this list, and you have a recipe for driver distraction with a vengeance.
Drivers are now so immune and blissfully unaware of what is really required to be a fully competent driver because the progress of technology gives them the impression that they are safe; it can't/won't happen to them in their modern, techno-laden vehicle. The reality of course is completely the reverse.
The only answer to this is driver education. If individuals start to think for themselves because they are trained to do so they reject the dangerous practices and adopt the safe approach being fully aware of the danger to themselves and others. It is clear from the continued substantial current use despite the points and heavy fines, that enforcement doesn't work.
J
I am old enough to remember the early mobile phones and how they were used; and I believe the problem now is technology. There is nothing more completely misrepresentative of a description than calling the modern device a phone. It's not a phone; it's a miniature computer, the phone facility of which is only a tiny part of the device's features. And therein lies the problem.
Who remembers the early Motorola, affectionately known as the brick, with the aerial sticking out through the top? This was simply a phone and nothing else. It had one button memory to enable you to simply pick it up and press one button to make a call, which you could do easily with one hand. There was much less distraction doing that than for example fiddling with the stereo or the heater controls.
Phone use then of course, was desperately restricted to where you could get a signal. In the Western Isles for example it was common to see people huddled together in a wee spot in the middle of nowhere with phones stuck to their ears because it was the only place on the island you could find a signal!
I think the danger now is not the aspect of being distracted by a conversation, I don't buy into that despite the research claims. It is texting, being on the internet, setting up a route using satnav, and all the other seriously distracting features on the modern device. Combine this with the other ludicrously complex, and potentially dangerous, dash designs, the BMW 7 Series with iDrive is at the top of this list, and you have a recipe for driver distraction with a vengeance.
Drivers are now so immune and blissfully unaware of what is really required to be a fully competent driver because the progress of technology gives them the impression that they are safe; it can't/won't happen to them in their modern, techno-laden vehicle. The reality of course is completely the reverse.
The only answer to this is driver education. If individuals start to think for themselves because they are trained to do so they reject the dangerous practices and adopt the safe approach being fully aware of the danger to themselves and others. It is clear from the continued substantial current use despite the points and heavy fines, that enforcement doesn't work.
J
cb1965 said:
Vipers said:
Can't the problem really. Use a hand held mobile, breaking the law, may be fined, use hands free, do not break the law.
Yep and in doing so it's no worse than talking to a passenger yet we have a stream of people on here who want the use of them banned altogether even going as far as having them become disabled when they are inside a vehicle. I assume these people are genuinely unable to multiplex therefore want the whole world to kowtow to their stupidity! If you can't talk and drive at the same time then don't, but some of us can so leave us alone. The ban culture in the UK has got beyond a joke. Everything in this life is about risk, from walking the dog to climbing K2.
Being distracted in your car increases the risks for you and those around you.
Talking on a phone is a distraction. We can argue how much of a distraction, but it IS a distraction.
No driver needs to talk on the phone when driving (except 999 calls) so it is a pointless distraction and a needless risk.
Everyone under 30 years old will be thinking, no I have to be in touch 24/7.
Those of us older know that you don't.
Being distracted in your car increases the risks for you and those around you.
Talking on a phone is a distraction. We can argue how much of a distraction, but it IS a distraction.
No driver needs to talk on the phone when driving (except 999 calls) so it is a pointless distraction and a needless risk.
Everyone under 30 years old will be thinking, no I have to be in touch 24/7.
Those of us older know that you don't.
I can't believe those who say that they can't go on a journey without being able to use their phone!
Get a life!!
It's not that long ago that taking your phone out and about with you was not possible, we all lived through that.
Maybe you think you need to get that call because you are important? If you were that important you'd have a chauffeur and could sit in the back making those 'oh-so-urgent' calls as much as you like!
When driving you should only be concentrating on one thing, DRIVING!
Get a life!!
It's not that long ago that taking your phone out and about with you was not possible, we all lived through that.
Maybe you think you need to get that call because you are important? If you were that important you'd have a chauffeur and could sit in the back making those 'oh-so-urgent' calls as much as you like!
When driving you should only be concentrating on one thing, DRIVING!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff