Using Mobile Phones Whilst Driving!
Discussion
wiggy001 said:
Me, I like to drive around talking on my hands free kit with my index finger in my ear and my little finger near my mouth - this is a totally safe practice because the government says so...
I dooo like that quote
I prefer to use my thumb for the ear tho... still just as safe as the index finger IMO and totaly legal.
It does kinda make a mockery of this nanny law
CommanderJameson said:
Actually, a mobile phone conversation is, generally speaking, much more of a distraction than a conversation with a human passenger.
The reason is that a human passenger will, in general, moderate their conversation in response to the road conditions; if you're about to execute a complex manoeuvre then they tend to pause.
The person on the other end of the phone doesn't.
While I disagree with making the use of mobile phones whilst driving illegal (sets all sorts of disagreeable precedents) I can see how the law got passed.
If you're on the phone, you're paying considerably less attention than you would be if the person you were talking to were in the car with you.
In my opinion, using the phone whilst driving does distract you, often the other half will be yapping to me, and something either ahead or astern gets my attention, and all my attention is focused on the activity in question, when she says "Did you hear me" I have to admit I didnt, too busy observing other road users.
Hands free kit, no probs with that, but when you see plonkers trying to dial up numbers (assumption I know) whilst driving, or those bloody lorry drivers spinning the wheel to turn corners with the CB mike in the other hand (common observation in Aberdeen) you have to ask yourself "Is he really in command of that vehicle"
madasafish said:
"and maybe not tugging the chap doing a sedate 90 on the M11 in the dry at 3AM in a perfectly straight line. "
He's breaking the law is not he.
If I may say, you have an apt name there
He is indeed breaking the law, he should be hung, drawn and quartered.
A fitting draconian punishment for a draconian law.
madasafish said:
My view of the mobile ban - before it was intruced - was it was unenforceable. It is clearly not being enforced. there are not enough traffic police. If there were your 90mph on a motorway guy would be nicked as well..
I take it you don't support the use of speed cameras then? They are the reason we now have less trafpol.
Incidently, a traffic police officer who posts on here has said he doesn't pull someone for less than 92 on a flowing M-way.
What do ya think of that?
madasafish said:
I have zero sympathy for anyone exceeding a speed limit by that margin. They deserve everything they get when caught.
Hmmm, can I ask what motorway driving experience you have to base that opinion on please?
"can I ask what motorway driving experience you have to base that opinion on please?"
I have very little experience.
About 20,000 US Motorway miles.
About 10,000 German motorway miles.
About 30,000 South African miles.
About 10,000 miles a year in the UK over the last 35 years.
But not really very much.
I have very little experience.
About 20,000 US Motorway miles.
About 10,000 German motorway miles.
About 30,000 South African miles.
About 10,000 miles a year in the UK over the last 35 years.
But not really very much.
madasafish said:
"and maybe not tugging the chap doing a sedate 90 on the M11 in the dry at 3AM in a perfectly straight line. "
He's breaking the law is not he.
What purpose does tugging this driver serve? Apart from some absolute numerical law, what has he done wrong? He's driving to the conditions.
madasafish said:
Next you'll be telling me that MPs should not be prosecuted as they are servants of the people or racing drivers cos they are safe..
That's nonsense. I implied nor said no such thing, and you know it.
madasafish said:
Get real. IF you let one idiot get away, thousands will follow. IF we followed the US system with helicopter systems above motorways, everyone - but everyone - would do 70mph.
Like they do in America? Only not, of course.
madasafish said:
Don't defend the indefensible: it just means the next cause will be diminished because of your support of the indefensible before.
What's indefensible? That 90MPH in a modern, roadworthy car on an empty motorway is actually safe? If you're going to argue THAT, then I demand proof.
madasafish said:
My view of the mobile ban - before it was intruced - was it was unenforceable. It is clearly not being enforced. there are not enough traffic police. If there were your 90mph on a motorway guy would be nicked as well..
I see that the grammar police have you; "If there were your 90mph" makes no sense whatsoever.
madasafish said:
I have zero sympathy for anyone exceeding a speed limit by that margin. They deserve everything they get when caught.
Well, the next time you get stung for doing 65 in a 50 that was badly signed, get back to me on that.
madasafish said:
"can I ask what motorway driving experience you have to base that opinion on please?"
I have very little experience.
About 20,000 US Motorway miles.
About 10,000 German motorway miles.
About 30,000 South African miles.
About 10,000 miles a year in the UK over the last 35 years.
But not really very much.
With all that experience under your belt, you honestly believe 90 on a quiet UK motorway is dangerous?
My god! That does make me question your ability as a driver. Have you ever even done 90 on a quiet motorway?
If you only feel safe at 70 or less that's fine, but how you can say anyone doing 90 deserves all they may get I do not comprehend. Would it be okay if the speed limit was raised to 90?
Please explain exactly what the proplem with it is, I'm fascinated by such a veiw point coming from an experienced Autobahn driver as yourself.
apologies to all for going off mobile phone topic!
>> Edited by deeps on Thursday 18th August 01:16
Julian64 said:
But the idea that its impossible to take a phone call and be safe on the road is ridiculous. Its also ridiculous to suggest its comparable with drunk driving. As this is obviously a commonly held view and since the advent of cameras you are unlikely to meet the bib on a road people are using phone as much as ever.
Whilst it is possible to speak on the phone whilst driving, and be safe, there are those who can't manage it. I see them all the time. A classic case was last night on the A40 going down the hill to the traffic lights at Denham. This a three lane streetch of road with a 60 limit. This was of no concern to the bloke in the flash Merc, who was in the inside lane doing less than 20 whilst talking on his mobile.
We don't need new laws to deal with this, we need a BIB presence on the road, however imperfect that might be, who can make a judgement based on the circumstances. We all know how likely that is though.
IanReid said:
But the idea that its impossible to take a phone call and be safe on the road is ridiculous. Its also ridiculous to suggest its comparable with drunk driving. As this is obviously a commonly held view and since the advent of cameras you are unlikely to meet the bib on a road people are using phone as much as ever.
Whilst it is possible to speak on the phone whilst driving, and be safe, there are those who can't manage it. I see them all the time. A classic case was last night on the A40 going down the hill to the traffic lights at Denham. This a three lane streetch of road with a 60 limit. This was of no concern to the bloke in the flash Merc, who was in the inside lane doing less than 20 whilst talking on his mobile.
We don't need new laws to deal with this, we need a BIB presence on the road, however imperfect that might be, who can make a judgement based on the circumstances. We all know how likely that is though.
Well said, agree 100%
I've suddenly realised what the issue is here (for me anyway).
It's this feeling that when you've done something that is classed as illegal, or wrong, or whatever, then if you disagree with it, then it's really really unfair if it's enforced on you.
You drive at 40mph in a 30mph zone and get done. Well aren't the Old Bill a set of B******S for doing that to you. Let's face it, you're perfectly safe, so why pick on you. Not only that, you'll use the phone. It's illegal but hey, so what, you know it's safe, all the research is wrong, therefore the law is wrong. They are now putting cameras on roads, and when people speed, they're getting done for it. It's disgraceful! Let's face, we all know that 90mph is no worse than 70mph. We just know it, so we can do it, surely. So yeah, it's okay to break a law you disagree with.
Apart from the law about drink driving. Most of us don't do that, so that's a good law. In fact, if someone got caught drink driving, we would support them getting sent down, even if they said they were safe and the law is wrong. Because that's no argument is it. Well not unless we use it.
Rather than just decide the law doesn't apply 'cos you know best, try and do something about it. When someone justifies breaking the law, ask what action they've taken (other than the easy route of saying they know best).
Have they writtten to their MP (let me guess, it's a waste of time, yeah yeah blah de blah), have they visited the MP surgery, have they joined a motoring organisation, have they organised a petition, or a rally, or done anything other than say it's unfair. Have they even organised a mass gathering to break the law in protest.
Thought not. Because all the above are valid, but difficult. Remember when we protested about the 'Poll Tax', we stood up and refused to pay AND GOT SENT DOWN. We didn't just whinge like a load of little kids 'cos the BiB picked on us (as they did when we supported the Miners). We knew they would, 'cos the Law was broken, but we were prepared to do something about it to try and change it.
I STILL think that driving while using a phone is dangerous. But I also think that only going with the rules you agree with, without having the guts to do anything to try and change it, is very dangerous, very easy, and ultimately a waste of time.
It's this feeling that when you've done something that is classed as illegal, or wrong, or whatever, then if you disagree with it, then it's really really unfair if it's enforced on you.
You drive at 40mph in a 30mph zone and get done. Well aren't the Old Bill a set of B******S for doing that to you. Let's face it, you're perfectly safe, so why pick on you. Not only that, you'll use the phone. It's illegal but hey, so what, you know it's safe, all the research is wrong, therefore the law is wrong. They are now putting cameras on roads, and when people speed, they're getting done for it. It's disgraceful! Let's face, we all know that 90mph is no worse than 70mph. We just know it, so we can do it, surely. So yeah, it's okay to break a law you disagree with.
Apart from the law about drink driving. Most of us don't do that, so that's a good law. In fact, if someone got caught drink driving, we would support them getting sent down, even if they said they were safe and the law is wrong. Because that's no argument is it. Well not unless we use it.
Rather than just decide the law doesn't apply 'cos you know best, try and do something about it. When someone justifies breaking the law, ask what action they've taken (other than the easy route of saying they know best).
Have they writtten to their MP (let me guess, it's a waste of time, yeah yeah blah de blah), have they visited the MP surgery, have they joined a motoring organisation, have they organised a petition, or a rally, or done anything other than say it's unfair. Have they even organised a mass gathering to break the law in protest.
Thought not. Because all the above are valid, but difficult. Remember when we protested about the 'Poll Tax', we stood up and refused to pay AND GOT SENT DOWN. We didn't just whinge like a load of little kids 'cos the BiB picked on us (as they did when we supported the Miners). We knew they would, 'cos the Law was broken, but we were prepared to do something about it to try and change it.
I STILL think that driving while using a phone is dangerous. But I also think that only going with the rules you agree with, without having the guts to do anything to try and change it, is very dangerous, very easy, and ultimately a waste of time.
"
With all that experience under your belt, you honestly believe 90 on a quiet UK motorway is dangerous? "
What I believe is inconsequential.
It's illegal.
So is parking on double yellow lines and going the wrong way down a one way street.
So are you going to pick and choose which laws you will obey? That way lies anarchy.
With all that experience under your belt, you honestly believe 90 on a quiet UK motorway is dangerous? "
What I believe is inconsequential.
It's illegal.
So is parking on double yellow lines and going the wrong way down a one way street.
So are you going to pick and choose which laws you will obey? That way lies anarchy.
madasafish said:
So are you going to pick and choose which laws you will obey?
I think you'll find that everyone does, perhaps even you Mr 'The law is the law' - have you never taken home a biro from work, and not returned it? That would be theft you see. We are in breach of minor laws at times, often without realising it, the purpose of law is the maintenance of societally acceptable standards, not blind unthinking compliance.
Madasafish, you didnt take the lead role in the film "Judge Dread" did you ? Only kidding........
For my own 2p worth, the actual act of speaking on a mobile telephone is not in itself inherantly dangerous, but rather the retrieval of the phone from the confines of the glovebox/briefcase, unlocking the PIN & then scrolling through the menu in order to find the number you want.
However, since you have to do the former before you get to the latter, I can well appreciate why the use of a handheld phone is now illegal (though wholly unenforced if my own observations are anything to go by).
For my own 2p worth, the actual act of speaking on a mobile telephone is not in itself inherantly dangerous, but rather the retrieval of the phone from the confines of the glovebox/briefcase, unlocking the PIN & then scrolling through the menu in order to find the number you want.
However, since you have to do the former before you get to the latter, I can well appreciate why the use of a handheld phone is now illegal (though wholly unenforced if my own observations are anything to go by).
>MILF
As I mentioned earlier, I was against the ban on mobile phones (not because of any merit/demerit of the ban) because:
It was clearly unenforceable.
And laws that are unenforceable bring the law into disrepute . i.e. people pick and chose the laws they want to obey..
I'm not Judge Dread:-), nor am I perfect nor do I always keep to speed limits 100%.
However, if the Government wanted, they could tie mobile phone records into locations and Satellite navigation and automatically switch off/ trace/ etc users whose mobile is travelling at say 50mph. (bit tough if you're in a train. Fortunately Government IT projects never work!
I think using a mobile whilst driving is distracting.. but due to lack of enforcement, it will continue to be done by a large % of drivers.
Such is life:-)
>> Edited by madasafish on Thursday 18th August 15:59
As I mentioned earlier, I was against the ban on mobile phones (not because of any merit/demerit of the ban) because:
It was clearly unenforceable.
And laws that are unenforceable bring the law into disrepute . i.e. people pick and chose the laws they want to obey..
I'm not Judge Dread:-), nor am I perfect nor do I always keep to speed limits 100%.
However, if the Government wanted, they could tie mobile phone records into locations and Satellite navigation and automatically switch off/ trace/ etc users whose mobile is travelling at say 50mph. (bit tough if you're in a train. Fortunately Government IT projects never work!
I think using a mobile whilst driving is distracting.. but due to lack of enforcement, it will continue to be done by a large % of drivers.
Such is life:-)
>> Edited by madasafish on Thursday 18th August 15:59
Interesting thread this...
On one hand, maybe, just maybe, speaking into a mobile may not be dangerous whilst cruising along a dual carriageway or motorway. However, dialling your mum IMHO is very dangerous whilst driving, wherever, whenever.
With speeding, doing 50 in a 30mph limit where there is a school, at say 3pm on a schoolday is reckless. However, doing 90 on a motorway in good conditions is IMHO not risky at all, provided everybody plays by the rules.
The problem is that the answer to whether or not an action represents danger depends on the circumstances. So the only way you can apply some sense is to rely on our BIB to exercise judgement before busting people for breaking the letter of the law.
Sadly (?) we don't pay enough tax (?) to fund sufficient boys in blue, so what we get are speed cameras for those of us who like to challenge speed guidelines, and nothing done about those of us who use mobiles whilst driving, 'cos it is impossible to catch them unless seen by the BIB red-handed.
I don't know where that leaves us, as I hate speed cameras, but I also think mobile users are generally reckless and present a risk to me when I speed past them. There are limits, it is just a matter of consensus about what is appropriate and what is not.
Consensus states that drink-driving is unacceptable, mobile usage is too, but speeding may not be. However, try telling that to somebody who lost a loved one to somebody else who was speeding recklessly. And that is the point about speeding. Speeding doesn't kill people, bad driving does. The fact is that when you are drunk or using a mobile then you are more likely to be driving badly as a result. With speeding that is not the case.
Rant over.
>> Edited by V7TTE on Thursday 18th August 16:46
On one hand, maybe, just maybe, speaking into a mobile may not be dangerous whilst cruising along a dual carriageway or motorway. However, dialling your mum IMHO is very dangerous whilst driving, wherever, whenever.
With speeding, doing 50 in a 30mph limit where there is a school, at say 3pm on a schoolday is reckless. However, doing 90 on a motorway in good conditions is IMHO not risky at all, provided everybody plays by the rules.
The problem is that the answer to whether or not an action represents danger depends on the circumstances. So the only way you can apply some sense is to rely on our BIB to exercise judgement before busting people for breaking the letter of the law.
Sadly (?) we don't pay enough tax (?) to fund sufficient boys in blue, so what we get are speed cameras for those of us who like to challenge speed guidelines, and nothing done about those of us who use mobiles whilst driving, 'cos it is impossible to catch them unless seen by the BIB red-handed.
I don't know where that leaves us, as I hate speed cameras, but I also think mobile users are generally reckless and present a risk to me when I speed past them. There are limits, it is just a matter of consensus about what is appropriate and what is not.
Consensus states that drink-driving is unacceptable, mobile usage is too, but speeding may not be. However, try telling that to somebody who lost a loved one to somebody else who was speeding recklessly. And that is the point about speeding. Speeding doesn't kill people, bad driving does. The fact is that when you are drunk or using a mobile then you are more likely to be driving badly as a result. With speeding that is not the case.
Rant over.
>> Edited by V7TTE on Thursday 18th August 16:46
Madasafish,
I am a little confused here. If you have driven on the Autobahn quite a lot, then at what speed? Last time I was there, if you were doing 70mph, you would have caused a multiple pile-up !!
Also, with regards to we obey the laws we wish.. Of course we do. Many Laws are based upon Morality, and if we believe them to be wholly immoral, there is a theory that we can disobey them (we are still breaking the law BTW).. Do you not practise your archery every Sunday? If not, why not? Have you decided to break this law? Do you ever record any TV shows? Breaking Copyright laws, or are they ok to break? Ever made your own CD from the ones in your collection? Also a copyright offense.. Ever made a back-up disc? Also breach of copyright (9 times outta 10)
The reason using a mobile has become a crime IMO is because that way you can be photographed using the phone, and it is instant tax collection time.. WOuldn't surprise me if the Talivans also check for motorists using a mobile for bonus points....
I am a little confused here. If you have driven on the Autobahn quite a lot, then at what speed? Last time I was there, if you were doing 70mph, you would have caused a multiple pile-up !!
Also, with regards to we obey the laws we wish.. Of course we do. Many Laws are based upon Morality, and if we believe them to be wholly immoral, there is a theory that we can disobey them (we are still breaking the law BTW).. Do you not practise your archery every Sunday? If not, why not? Have you decided to break this law? Do you ever record any TV shows? Breaking Copyright laws, or are they ok to break? Ever made your own CD from the ones in your collection? Also a copyright offense.. Ever made a back-up disc? Also breach of copyright (9 times outta 10)
The reason using a mobile has become a crime IMO is because that way you can be photographed using the phone, and it is instant tax collection time.. WOuldn't surprise me if the Talivans also check for motorists using a mobile for bonus points....
S*D this, I'm off out for a drive.......fast.....making a phone call...while eating an apple (only joking).
Good thread this. Thats the difference you see. Even if I disagree with some of the sentiments (and lets face it, some of 'em are absolute twaddle!!!) I respect your right, and your intelligence. Thats 'cos:
a) PH'ers can string 2 words together
b) they feel passionate about driving.
c) they avoid pointless abuse (although the bit about poor grammar was a tad babyish).
However, someone earlier asked how you can concentrate with a phone. It's obvious. You get in your hot hatch, tear down the road thinking about your 16th birthday, pull out your "oh so expensive I'm such a good driver my mum bought me it" phone, and then allocate 1 brain cell to your whoofer, one brain cell to your phone, and your last remaining brain cell to concentrating.
Good thread this. Thats the difference you see. Even if I disagree with some of the sentiments (and lets face it, some of 'em are absolute twaddle!!!) I respect your right, and your intelligence. Thats 'cos:
a) PH'ers can string 2 words together
b) they feel passionate about driving.
c) they avoid pointless abuse (although the bit about poor grammar was a tad babyish).
However, someone earlier asked how you can concentrate with a phone. It's obvious. You get in your hot hatch, tear down the road thinking about your 16th birthday, pull out your "oh so expensive I'm such a good driver my mum bought me it" phone, and then allocate 1 brain cell to your whoofer, one brain cell to your phone, and your last remaining brain cell to concentrating.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff