Driving with the Radio or C.D on.
Discussion
Brian Trizers said:
Sarcasm for the driving or the music? PC was a Flagstad man and you were playing Nilsson? 
Er, spot on, that man - it was the re-mastered Solti. I think the misunderstanding may have arisen when I politely suggested that he couldn't tell his Furtwängler from his Böhme…I think about when I use the radio, or anything else, in the context of how many things I'm trying to do right now.
If I think I've got too many things to concentrate on, I turn the radio off. When I'm clear of the hazards that worried me, I pop it back on again.
I've also learned that one can't hear one's parking sensors when listening to electronic music...
If I think I've got too many things to concentrate on, I turn the radio off. When I'm clear of the hazards that worried me, I pop it back on again.
I've also learned that one can't hear one's parking sensors when listening to electronic music...
R_U_LOCAL said:
Multi-tasking.
Maybe contraversially, I also don't believe that holding a conversation on a mobile phone is excessively distracting either - the actions required to answer a call, or to make a call could be, but the call itself is no more distracting than talking to a passenger.
Oh dear.Maybe contraversially, I also don't believe that holding a conversation on a mobile phone is excessively distracting either - the actions required to answer a call, or to make a call could be, but the call itself is no more distracting than talking to a passenger.
On the day in which the fines and penalties for this modern motoring menace are substantially increased, I am still reading stuff like this.
I would argue that it has been incontrovertantly established that a phone conversation whilst driving is highly distracting.
Passengers react to events on the road, a remote caller does not.
PITB.
nonsequitur said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
Multi-tasking.
Maybe contraversially, I also don't believe that holding a conversation on a mobile phone is excessively distracting either - the actions required to answer a call, or to make a call could be, but the call itself is no more distracting than talking to a passenger.
Oh dear.Maybe contraversially, I also don't believe that holding a conversation on a mobile phone is excessively distracting either - the actions required to answer a call, or to make a call could be, but the call itself is no more distracting than talking to a passenger.
On the day in which the fines and penalties for this modern motoring menace are substantially increased, I am still reading stuff like this.
I would argue that it has been incontrovertantly established that a phone conversation whilst driving is highly distracting.
Passengers react to events on the road, a remote caller does not.
PITB.
b) imagine the scenario of children in the back - not reacting to events / demanding attention from their driving parent / arguing
c) it has not incontrovertibly been established as you suggest
d) fines etc. are simply set as they are because it is an easy issue to detect - there are plenty of other activities which are as / more distracting, but difficult to prove, so don't have specific legislation...
e) hand held mobile phone use is shown to have a negative effect, so should be reduced
f) hands-free mobile phone use has not been shown to have the same effect - so is not illegal
g) there are plenty of contradictions in the law / approach (e.g. using the screen system on many cars is more complex / distracting than using a hand-held phone, but is legal - however it is all about what is easy to police as much as anything else...
I think the biggest danger to driving concentration is for an internal train of thought to get going, my experience is that this seems to happen less if there's music on. It's as if the bit of your brain not involved in watching the road locks onto the music instead of throwing up thoughts like 'what should I have said in that meeting'.
akirk said:
a) most passengers do not react to events on the road
b) imagine the scenario of children in the back - not reacting to events / demanding attention from their driving parent / arguing
c) it has not incontrovertibly been established as you suggest
d) fines etc. are simply set as they are because it is an easy issue to detect - there are plenty of other activities which are as / more distracting, but difficult to prove, so don't have specific legislation...
e) hand held mobile phone use is shown to have a negative effect, so should be reduced
f) hands-free mobile phone use has not been shown to have the same effect - so is not illegal
g) there are plenty of contradictions in the law / approach (e.g. using the screen system on many cars is more complex / distracting than using a hand-held phone, but is legal - however it is all about what is easy to police as much as anything else...
a) If a passenger saw a group of children crossing the road (won't someone think of the children!!!), and the driver was oblivious, I imagine the passenger would react. Something which could not happen if said passenger was on the other end of a phone.b) imagine the scenario of children in the back - not reacting to events / demanding attention from their driving parent / arguing
c) it has not incontrovertibly been established as you suggest
d) fines etc. are simply set as they are because it is an easy issue to detect - there are plenty of other activities which are as / more distracting, but difficult to prove, so don't have specific legislation...
e) hand held mobile phone use is shown to have a negative effect, so should be reduced
f) hands-free mobile phone use has not been shown to have the same effect - so is not illegal
g) there are plenty of contradictions in the law / approach (e.g. using the screen system on many cars is more complex / distracting than using a hand-held phone, but is legal - however it is all about what is easy to police as much as anything else...
b) What sort of argument is that? Solution? Ban children / passengers from motor vehicles?, or fine drivers for letting them in vehicles?. Step too far me thinks, possibly not going to be welcomed by the majority of citizens in this country either.
d) Because they are easy to detect, we shouldn't bother? Until everything can be detected equally? That makes no sense.
e) Should be reduced? How do you reduce it? You mean ban?
f) TRL have undertaken research which indicates that drivers struggle to maintain lane discipline when using hands free. Maybe not you, maybe not I, but we're clearly enthusiasts who enjoy driving. Others aren't, and therefore are more easily distracted from the task in hand.
G) Absolutely, the laws are not keeping up with technology
Apologies if i've mis-understood any points.
t of of the car if I'm listening to something like that, this is why it's just the radio all the time nonsequitur said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
Multi-tasking.
Maybe contraversially, I also don't believe that holding a conversation on a mobile phone is excessively distracting either - the actions required to answer a call, or to make a call could be, but the call itself is no more distracting than talking to a passenger.
Oh dear.Maybe contraversially, I also don't believe that holding a conversation on a mobile phone is excessively distracting either - the actions required to answer a call, or to make a call could be, but the call itself is no more distracting than talking to a passenger.
On the day in which the fines and penalties for this modern motoring menace are substantially increased, I am still reading stuff like this.
I would argue that it has been incontrovertantly established that a phone conversation whilst driving is highly distracting.
Passengers react to events on the road, a remote caller does not.
PITB.
If it's been established beyond doubt that a phone conversation whilst driving (that's the conversation itself, not the actions involved in making or answering a call, which I specifically excluded from my statement), then there must be some published evidence or statistics to that effect.
Could you please provide a link / links to the evidence?
You first, then I'll provide mine.
The recent thread about mobile phone use on ADHub ran to 51 pages. Many studies were quoted, all of which found phone use to be distracting. Some found the conclusions from the studies to be invalid. Views on both sides were strongly held and entrenched (I am with Reg, and continue to use a hands free phone while driving).
I suggest folk read through that thread before starting again:
http://www.advanceddrivinghub.com/forum/viewtopic....
I suggest folk read through that thread before starting again:
http://www.advanceddrivinghub.com/forum/viewtopic....
See above posts.
Transport Research institute 2014 (Hands free.)
62 phone related fatalities in 2015. Dozens of related serious injuries. (Transport minister, on Radio Four.)
'The second worse thing you can do when driving, (after phone use), is speeding'. ( Top ranked traffic commisioner for London.)
Common sense.
It's just plain irresponsible. (my research.)
Transport Research institute 2014 (Hands free.)
62 phone related fatalities in 2015. Dozens of related serious injuries. (Transport minister, on Radio Four.)
'The second worse thing you can do when driving, (after phone use), is speeding'. ( Top ranked traffic commisioner for London.)
Common sense.
It's just plain irresponsible. (my research.)
Edited by nonsequitur on Sunday 5th March 15:33
When i was younger, holding a conversation with the radio on didn't appear to affect my driving in any way. Now i have tinnitus i have to strain if pasengers are talking to me and i can feel it distracting me until i turn the radio off, it's so noticable i turn the radio off if i have passengers now.
7mike said:
nonsequitur said:
On the day in which the fines and penalties for this modern motoring menace are substantially increased, I am still reading stuff like this.
Well stop digging up two year old posts then 
Dr Murdoch said:
akirk said:
a) most passengers do not react to events on the road
b) imagine the scenario of children in the back - not reacting to events / demanding attention from their driving parent / arguing
c) it has not incontrovertibly been established as you suggest
d) fines etc. are simply set as they are because it is an easy issue to detect - there are plenty of other activities which are as / more distracting, but difficult to prove, so don't have specific legislation...
e) hand held mobile phone use is shown to have a negative effect, so should be reduced
f) hands-free mobile phone use has not been shown to have the same effect - so is not illegal
g) there are plenty of contradictions in the law / approach (e.g. using the screen system on many cars is more complex / distracting than using a hand-held phone, but is legal - however it is all about what is easy to police as much as anything else...
a) If a passenger saw a group of children crossing the road (won't someone think of the children!!!), and the driver was oblivious, I imagine the passenger would react. Something which could not happen if said passenger was on the other end of a phone.b) imagine the scenario of children in the back - not reacting to events / demanding attention from their driving parent / arguing
c) it has not incontrovertibly been established as you suggest
d) fines etc. are simply set as they are because it is an easy issue to detect - there are plenty of other activities which are as / more distracting, but difficult to prove, so don't have specific legislation...
e) hand held mobile phone use is shown to have a negative effect, so should be reduced
f) hands-free mobile phone use has not been shown to have the same effect - so is not illegal
g) there are plenty of contradictions in the law / approach (e.g. using the screen system on many cars is more complex / distracting than using a hand-held phone, but is legal - however it is all about what is easy to police as much as anything else...
b) What sort of argument is that? Solution? Ban children / passengers from motor vehicles?, or fine drivers for letting them in vehicles?. Step too far me thinks, possibly not going to be welcomed by the majority of citizens in this country either.
d) Because they are easy to detect, we shouldn't bother? Until everything can be detected equally? That makes no sense.
e) Should be reduced? How do you reduce it? You mean ban?
f) TRL have undertaken research which indicates that drivers struggle to maintain lane discipline when using hands free. Maybe not you, maybe not I, but we're clearly enthusiasts who enjoy driving. Others aren't, and therefore are more easily distracted from the task in hand.
G) Absolutely, the laws are not keeping up with technology
Apologies if i've mis-understood any points.
Reg Local said:
Ok I'll bite.
If it's been established beyond doubt that a phone conversation whilst driving (that's the conversation itself, not the actions involved in making or answering a call, which I specifically excluded from my statement), then there must be some published evidence or statistics to that effect.
Could you please provide a link / links to the evidence?
You first, then I'll provide mine.
I'm interested in your published evidence Reg. I found this: http://acrs.org.au/files/papers/15%20Young%20A%20r... Top of page 7 if you don't want to read all through it.If it's been established beyond doubt that a phone conversation whilst driving (that's the conversation itself, not the actions involved in making or answering a call, which I specifically excluded from my statement), then there must be some published evidence or statistics to that effect.
Could you please provide a link / links to the evidence?
You first, then I'll provide mine.
7mike said:
Reg Local said:
Ok I'll bite.
If it's been established beyond doubt that a phone conversation whilst driving (that's the conversation itself, not the actions involved in making or answering a call, which I specifically excluded from my statement), then there must be some published evidence or statistics to that effect.
Could you please provide a link / links to the evidence?
You first, then I'll provide mine.
I'm interested in your published evidence Reg. I found this: http://acrs.org.au/files/papers/15%20Young%20A%20r... Top of page 7 if you don't want to read all through it.If it's been established beyond doubt that a phone conversation whilst driving (that's the conversation itself, not the actions involved in making or answering a call, which I specifically excluded from my statement), then there must be some published evidence or statistics to that effect.
Could you please provide a link / links to the evidence?
You first, then I'll provide mine.
The DFT accident statistics for 2015 show that in 2015 a total of only 440 reportable (injury) road accidents were caused partly or wholly by a driver using a mobile phone. That's 440 out of a total of 108,211 accidents - 22 of which were fatal (out of 1,469). 0.4% of all accidents were attributed to mobile phone use in 2015.
By comparison, 2,920 accidents (2.7% of all accidents) were caused solely or in part by distraction inside the vehicle, which includes distraction by passengers. 61 of those accidents were fatal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-set... (first link down the list)
I'm not trying to suggest that mobile phone use isn't dangerous or distracting, because it most certainly is. It isn't, however, the major cause of accidents suggested by the road safety lobby & politicians. It should be addressed and I'm all for increased penalties & enforcement, but there are much more serious issues on our roads which would benefit from an increase in enforcement and education.
Drivers failing to look properly would be a good place to start. This contributory factor accounted for over 47,000 accidents in 2015 & 400 fatalities. 47.7% of all accidents, in fact.
Reg Local said:
I stated that I thought that the call itself is no more distracting than talking to a passenger.
The DFT accident statistics for 2015 show that in 2015 a total of only 440 reportable (injury) road accidents were caused partly or wholly by a driver using a mobile phone. That's 440 out of a total of 108,211 accidents - 22 of which were fatal (out of 1,469). 0.4% of all accidents were attributed to mobile phone use in 2015.
By comparison, 2,920 accidents (2.7% of all accidents) were caused solely or in part by distraction inside the vehicle, which includes distraction by passengers. 61 of those accidents were fatal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-set... (first link down the list)
I'm not trying to suggest that mobile phone use isn't dangerous or distracting, because it most certainly is. It isn't, however, the major cause of accidents suggested by the road safety lobby & politicians. It should be addressed and I'm all for increased penalties & enforcement, but there are much more serious issues on our roads which would benefit from an increase in enforcement and education.
Drivers failing to look properly would be a good place to start. This contributory factor accounted for over 47,000 accidents in 2015 & 400 fatalities. 47.7% of all accidents, in fact.
You asked the previous poster if there was any published evidence so I shared a link to that evidence. I don't think I implied it was a major cause of accidents. The DFT accident statistics for 2015 show that in 2015 a total of only 440 reportable (injury) road accidents were caused partly or wholly by a driver using a mobile phone. That's 440 out of a total of 108,211 accidents - 22 of which were fatal (out of 1,469). 0.4% of all accidents were attributed to mobile phone use in 2015.
By comparison, 2,920 accidents (2.7% of all accidents) were caused solely or in part by distraction inside the vehicle, which includes distraction by passengers. 61 of those accidents were fatal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-set... (first link down the list)
I'm not trying to suggest that mobile phone use isn't dangerous or distracting, because it most certainly is. It isn't, however, the major cause of accidents suggested by the road safety lobby & politicians. It should be addressed and I'm all for increased penalties & enforcement, but there are much more serious issues on our roads which would benefit from an increase in enforcement and education.
Drivers failing to look properly would be a good place to start. This contributory factor accounted for over 47,000 accidents in 2015 & 400 fatalities. 47.7% of all accidents, in fact.
Reg Local said:
Drivers failing to look properly would be a good place to start. This contributory factor accounted for over 47,000 accidents in 2015 & 400 fatalities. 47.7% of all accidents, in fact.
Way too difficult and contentious.Far easier to focus on black and white offences with easy convictions, and far easier to get the support of the public majority when the system is making criminals out of the minority. And the moral high ground greases the spoon very nicely, thank you.
So step forward speeding, drinking and now mobile phones. Everyone else can carry on as before.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff