BTCC's Frank Wrathall in court after cyclist collision

[VictoriaYorks]

Thank you for taking the time to explain that.

[MarkwG]

Chrisgr31 said:

The question is why is talking on a mobile phone so dangerous whilst driving and so much more dangerous than talking to someone in the car?

good question - the main reason is because the person on the other end can't determine what's going on around you, so can't moderate what they're saying to account for the other distractions around you; it's similar to when you chaffeur a non driver who keeps yacking whilst you're trying to negotiate a tricky situation, blissfully unaware of how distracting they're being. Also, whether we like it or not, the human brain is not designed to handle two sources of input at once, it has to prioritise; we absorb relatively little in normal conversation from what we hear, we use body language, context & tone to convey & receive meaning - a 'phone conversation takes much more direct concentration as you have to actively listen to what's being said, taking resources away from what you're looking at.

Chrisgr31 said:

The second question is why if it is so dangerous are hands free kits allowed?

another good one: pretty much because the hands free guys got their towel on the sunbed before the legislators woke up, & much like tobacco & alcohol, it's too late (although maybe not) to ban them.

[Mr_Thyroid]

MarkwG said:

Chrisgr31 said:

The question is why is talking on a mobile phone so dangerous whilst driving and so much more dangerous than talking to someone in the car?

good question - the main reason is because the person on the other end can't determine what's going on around you, so can't moderate what they're saying to account for the other distractions around you; it's similar to when you chaffeur a non driver who keeps yacking whilst you're trying to negotiate a tricky situation, blissfully unaware of how distracting they're being. Also, whether we like it or not, the human brain is not designed to handle two sources of input at once, it has to prioritise; we absorb relatively little in normal conversation from what we hear, we use body language, context & tone to convey & receive meaning - a 'phone conversation takes much more direct concentration as you have to actively listen to what's being said, taking resources away from what you're looking at.

Chrisgr31 said:

The second question is why if it is so dangerous are hands free kits allowed?

another good one: pretty much because the hands free guys got their towel on the sunbed before the legislators woke up, & much like tobacco & alcohol, it's too late (although maybe not) to ban them.

And while driving with one hand is quite easy most of the time it can make some situations more difficult.

And having a phone pressed to your ear makes one of those quick little blind spot checks more difficult.

[Eric Mc]

I think that using a hands free is only very marginally less dangerous than using a hand held device.

The studies are now beginning to prove conclusively that engaging in phone conversations whilst driving is a seriously distracting activity.

[Reardy Mister]

Eric Mc said:

I think that using a hands free is only very marginally less dangerous than using a hand held device.

The studies are now beginning to prove conclusively that engaging in phone conversations whilst driving is a seriously distracting activity.

Is the aim to eliminate all risk from driving? If in 20yrs time a study shows that talking to the passenger is seriously distracting, will it be outlawed?

Ice is serious danger, poor visibility is serious danger, stty brakes and tyres are a serious danger. Ive spoken on the phone on a motorbike before via a headset, as do bike coppers. Police talk on two ways but thanks to a loop hole are exempt because a two-way can only either transmit or receive at one time.

I agree, phone calls on a handset are at the more dangerous end of the scale, but lets keep some perspective about the dangers of operating a vehicle. Using a phone conversation as a benchmark, its an inherently dangerous activity. I'm amazed any of us survive.

[Reardy Mister]

Seight_Returns said:

VictoriaYorks said:

Honest question - presumably if he's in court they've already ruled out any fault being with the cyclist?

Not necessarily - depending upon the circumstances even if the cyclist was partially to blame for the collision (which there's no suggestion of from the reported facts), it wouldn't automatically be a reason not to persue the prosecution against Wrathall. And quite rightly so.

Many - maybe most - collisions are not entirely the fault of just one of the parties involved. It's not unusual for more than one party involved in a collision to be prosecuted for Careless or Dangerous Driving. Someone's bad driving/riding/cycling/pedestrianing doesn't excuse another person's bad driving.

Wrathall is being charged with Causing Death By Dangerous Driving - this means that based upon the investigation following the incident the Police and CPS believe that there's a case to answer that his driving fell far below the expected standard and that someone died as a result - and that a prosecution would both stand a reasonable change of success and would be in the public interest. Clearly the actions of the deceased are a factor for the court to consider in determining whether the alleged bad driving caused the death, but they're not a get out of jail free card (quite literally in this instance).

Edited by Seight_Returns on Thursday 4th July 18:34

Consider also the myriad of other mitigating factors:

• the other party may be over the blood alcohol limit
• the other party may have come off into the road and been fine, but been struck by another vehicle once there
• the other party may have ignored the vehicle's signalled intention to left and moved up the left side of the vehicle into its blind spot, in the time between the driver last looking and making the turn
• the cyclist may have no lights on in the dark etc etc

They don't detract from the extent to which talking on the phone and driving is breaking the law, but they may mean that blame for an incident is apportioned differently from how the Daily Mail would like to have you believe.

[Reardy Mister]

MG511 said:

Reardy Mister said:

How many people advocating a maximum jail term would still be if their wife or mother had turned around to look at one of the kids who was playing up in the back of the car and accidently side-swiped and killed a cyclist?

Turning around to look at a child is an instinctive act, having an 8 minute conversation on a mobile 'phone is not.

Pathetic defence. Taking your attention off the road is taking your attention off the road - at least with a phone call, you're still facing the right way.

Unless you would like to provide a sliding scale for which acts are ok to kill someone with under law and which ones aren't?

Lighting a ciggie no, putting Junior's dummy back in, yes? Seems fair.

[RemarkLima]

Eric Mc said:

I think that using a hands free is only very marginally less dangerous than using a hand held device.

The studies are now beginning to prove conclusively that engaging in phone conversations whilst driving is a seriously distracting activity.

But surely this starts to come down the risk awareness.

If I'm called (on handsfree) whilst driving I'll naturally slow down, and if someone starts to ask taxing questions I'll slow further still... I never realised I did this until a friend pointed that out to me, and her chagrin that her partner would continue at full speed when he was on the phone.

I think if the risks were highlighted you'd see a change in attitude.

[Eric Mc]

Reardy Mister said:

Is the aim to eliminate all risk from driving? If in 20yrs time a study shows that talking to the passenger is seriously distracting, will it be outlawed?

Ice is serious danger, poor visibility is serious danger, stty brakes and tyres are a serious danger. Ive spoken on the phone on a motorbike before via a headset, as do bike coppers. Police talk on two ways but thanks to a loop hole are exempt because a two-way can only either transmit or receive at one time.

I agree, phone calls on a handset are at the more dangerous end of the scale, but lets keep some perspective about the dangers of operating a vehicle. Using a phone conversation as a benchmark, its an inherently dangerous activity. I'm amazed any of us survive.

Of course all dangers cannot be eliminated. But the use of telephones whilst driving is obviously a fairly recent phenomenon which has become a problem over the past 20 years pr so.

Having made great inroads over the past 50 years in designing better safety into cars and improving driver behaviour overall, the abuse of mobile phones in cars is a retrograde step which can easily be reversed.

Every time campaigns begin to change something fundamental in driving, like the compulsory wearing of seatbelts, or the 70 mph speed limit or a harsher regime around drink driving - there were those who have objected on all sorts of grounds. But the safety changes were made and road fatalities have declined massively.

[Eric Mc]

RemarkLima said:

But surely this starts to come down the risk awareness.

If I'm called (on handsfree) whilst driving I'll naturally slow down, and if someone starts to ask taxing questions I'll slow further still... I never realised I did this until a friend pointed that out to me, and her chagrin that her partner would continue at full speed when he was on the phone.

I think if the risks were highlighted you'd see a change in attitude.

You are not everybody. Many will not take the precautions you do. And even then, what you do may not be enough.

When drink driving was more "accepted", there were people who used the exact same argument. They made comments like "I'm actually a better driver when I have a few drinks - I drive more slowly and am more cautious".

As I said, the research and tests carried out is now showing how detrimental to awareness conducting a phone conversation is.

[bnracing]

After reading this it has made me wonder.
I know use of a phone whilst driving is illegal.
But what if that CCTV camera had filmed the driver looking down playing with the radio, sat nav, air con etc in which case not even looking at the road ahead. Surly this must be more dangerous than being on a phone when although distracted at least you are looking at the road ahead.
Would the driver be up for the same charge of death by dangerous driving if caught changing radio station or Sat Nav etc which is not illegal?

[agtlaw]

The prosecution must firstly prove that Wrathall drove dangerously. The Road Traffic Act says that a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if the way he drives falls "far below" what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

If the prosecution can prove dangerous driving then they must also satisfy the jury, so they are sure, that the defendant's dangerous driving caused the death of the deceased. The link required is "a cause of death" rather than a substantial, main or major cause. Anything more than a minimal link is enough.

[ewenm]

bnracing said:

After reading this it has made me wonder.
I know use of a phone whilst driving is illegal.
But what if that CCTV camera had filmed the driver looking down playing with the radio, sat nav, air con etc in which case not even looking at the road ahead. Surly this must be more dangerous than being on a phone when although distracted at least you are looking at the road ahead.
Would the driver be up for the same charge of death by dangerous driving if caught changing radio station or Sat Nav etc which is not illegal?

Should be. The mobile phone law was unnecessary IMO - you're either driving dangerously or you're not, regardless of whether you're holding a phone, fiddling with the sat nav, shouting at the kids etc.

[VictoriaYorks]

Reardy Mister said:

Consider also the myriad of other mitigating factors:

• the other party may be over the blood alcohol limit
• the other party may have come off into the road and been fine, but been struck by another vehicle once there
• the other party may have ignored the vehicle's signalled intention to left and moved up the left side of the vehicle into its blind spot, in the time between the driver last looking and making the turn
• the cyclist may have no lights on in the dark etc etc

They don't detract from the extent to which talking on the phone and driving is breaking the law, but they may mean that blame for an incident is apportioned differently from how the Daily Mail would like to have you believe.

The cyclist being over the alcohol limit was the first thing I thought when I read that he had been at the tennis club in the afternoon, but I presumed they would have already done tests for that?

[oyster]

VictoriaYorks said:

Reardy Mister said:

Consider also the myriad of other mitigating factors:

• the other party may be over the blood alcohol limit
• the other party may have come off into the road and been fine, but been struck by another vehicle once there
• the other party may have ignored the vehicle's signalled intention to left and moved up the left side of the vehicle into its blind spot, in the time between the driver last looking and making the turn
• the cyclist may have no lights on in the dark etc etc

They don't detract from the extent to which talking on the phone and driving is breaking the law, but they may mean that blame for an incident is apportioned differently from how the Daily Mail would like to have you believe.

The cyclist being over the alcohol limit was the first thing I thought when I read that he had been at the tennis club in the afternoon, but I presumed they would have already done tests for that?

Good grief, now even the motorsport section is riddled with anti-cyclist attitude.

FFS, why would being at a tennis club make you drunk? Would the cylist be drunk if they'd been to the golf club? The kart track? The gym?

Amazing that a human being dies, possibly because another human being was highly negligent, and the first thing you think of is whether the victim was to blame.

[VictoriaYorks]

Calm down, just trying to see things from all angles, not trying to absolve blame from anyone

[Chrisgr31]

Eric Mc said:

RemarkLima said:

But surely this starts to come down the risk awareness.

If I'm called (on handsfree) whilst driving I'll naturally slow down, and if someone starts to ask taxing questions I'll slow further still... I never realised I did this until a friend pointed that out to me, and her chagrin that her partner would continue at full speed when he was on the phone.

I think if the risks were highlighted you'd see a change in attitude.

You are not everybody. Many will not take the precautions you do. And even then, what you do may not be enough.

Although I am not sure that he is actually taking precautions, because he said he was unaware that he slowed down. Therefore his brain is presumably unable to cope with two things at once and hence automatially the driving slows down. I doesn't necessarially mean he is now safe to drive whilst on the phone just demostrates the point you and others have been making about driving whilst on the phone.

I suspect the reality is it it depends on the phone call, if the other half is phoning to ask where you are or say they are late its not a distraction, if however they were ophoning to say they were leaving you or its a work related call it is likely to be a distraction.

Reality is I either ignore my phone when driving or stop to answer it, although being a billy no mates it rarely rings!

[oobster]

It would appear, from the other thread running in the News section of PH, that the case is now going to be heard in Jan 2014, and there are reporting restrictions in place. Intriguing.

[RemarkLima]

Chrisgr31 said:

Eric Mc said:

RemarkLima said:

But surely this starts to come down the risk awareness.

If I'm called (on handsfree) whilst driving I'll naturally slow down, and if someone starts to ask taxing questions I'll slow further still... I never realised I did this until a friend pointed that out to me, and her chagrin that her partner would continue at full speed when he was on the phone.

I think if the risks were highlighted you'd see a change in attitude.

You are not everybody. Many will not take the precautions you do. And even then, what you do may not be enough.

Although I am not sure that he is actually taking precautions, because he said he was unaware that he slowed down. Therefore his brain is presumably unable to cope with two things at once and hence automatially the driving slows down. I doesn't necessarially mean he is now safe to drive whilst on the phone just demostrates the point you and others have been making about driving whilst on the phone.

I suspect the reality is it it depends on the phone call, if the other half is phoning to ask where you are or say they are late its not a distraction, if however they were ophoning to say they were leaving you or its a work related call it is likely to be a distraction.

Reality is I either ignore my phone when driving or stop to answer it, although being a billy no mates it rarely rings!

Nice, thanks for diminishing my diminishing helmsmanship abilities even further.

The point being, when distracted, I'll naturally slow down to lessen the increased risk of being distracted. This is, what I think, a natural consequence of knowing the risks involved with driving (having done 100's of trackdays and a season racing) and how quickly one can become unstuck.

For example, larger road signs on a dodgy piece of road will cause a visual effect to make the road look narrower, which will make 99% of people slow down naturally, without thought, because of a perceived increase of risk. Without "conscious" thought, like changing gears, reading the road ahead, indicating (debatable).

In fact, I'd go so far as if you have to "consciously think" about driving, then you're probably not that competent either /Devils advocate

IMHO, this and this story all come down to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

[TIGA84]

Eric Mc said:

I think that using a hands free is only very marginally less dangerous than using a hand held device.

The studies are now beginning to prove conclusively that engaging in phone conversations whilst driving is a seriously distracting activity.

Can you provide some information on them?

I fail to see how something can "begin to prove conclusive" - that makes no sense at all, its either conclusive, or its not?