PDA

View Full Version : Driving whilst texting


SpringHeeledJack
17th Sep 2016, 13:59
The Uk Govt is to introduce more punitive action against motorists who text or phone whilst driving.

Texting drivers: Penalty points and fines to double - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37389800)

As to whether this will actually dissuade those who cannot not be parted from their electronic comfort blanket whilst in charge of complex machinery, remains to be seen. How will it be enforced ? The dearth of police on the roads observed by many means it might be by remote/robotic means, i.e cctv/sensors etc

G-CPTN
17th Sep 2016, 14:35
I'm amazed at how many drivers I see using handheld 'phones whilst driving through the centre of my village - where they are visible by whoever (including police if there were any).

andytug
17th Sep 2016, 14:40
Pointless without proper enforcement. We already had a "driving without due care" law, but some smart lawyers no doubt argued the toss over that, so now we have laws for every damn thing. Which are still useless unless enforced.

Hempy
17th Sep 2016, 14:46
Having lost a friends daughter to this practice, I find it worse than drink driving.

Our right leaning friends will scream 'nanny state!' by introducing another law, but the fact is that in this day and age it's becoming harder for younger people to ignore the instant gratification.

If the law (government) is driven in hard enough, the kids of today will learn the same as the kids of yesterday learnt about drink driving.

Kids. Ignore the ringtone or pull over.

Art E. Fischler-Reisen
17th Sep 2016, 14:51
Drivers behaviour often gives away the fact that they're using a phone.

Brake lights on, in any lane, for no apparent reason, followed by pulling over into lane 1. Then call/text complete, roar off again.

Lane "wobbling". Not concentrating whilst picking up the phone.

Young women...phone held up almost to their nose, phone in full view, driving without due car and attention, anything can happen because they're oblivious.

treadigraph
17th Sep 2016, 14:57
Under new rules expected to come in next year, drivers will get six points on their licence and face a £200 fine.

Leave it as that for a year, then raise it to an instant 12 month ban and a £1000 minimum fine. There is no excuse and, yes, it must be enforced.

Tankertrashnav
17th Sep 2016, 15:12
To which I would add that the offender must witness the crushing of his/her car, be it a £200 banger or a £150k supercar.

Pontius Navigator
17th Sep 2016, 15:39
Art, on your latter case, the young women in question are usually going round a corner at the same time - this is normal in our village. It would be ideal for the police. Just stand on the corner and take the money.

Also the point about pulling over and stopping - that is also verboten as you are still deemed in charge of the vehicle is the engine is running and you are not properly parked.

To this you can also add the women holding cups of coffee, doing their hair, lipstick etc and then men shaving though they can usually achieve that while looking ahead at the same time.

PDR1
17th Sep 2016, 15:40
To which I would add that the offender must witness the crushing of his/her car


Only if it was whilst belted into the driving seat.

PDR

Hempy
17th Sep 2016, 15:48
You really are a sick individual.

Windy Militant
17th Sep 2016, 16:14
To this you can also add the women holding cups of coffee, doing their hair, lipstick etc
I regularly used to meet a Woman in a Discovery, usually in the middle of the road, doing all the above plus looking over her shoulder shouting at her kids!
No apologies for this, should be shown at every school and as a PIF on the telly!

R0LCmStIw9E

VP959
17th Sep 2016, 16:16
As above, there is no enforcement, so what's the point?

I see people using 'phones whilst driving most days. I've got a saved dash cam video of a builder's pickup truck veering all over the road in front of me for a couple of miles, with a commentary by me saying I thought the driver was drunk. When we got to a junction and he turned right, it was clear he was using a phone.

FWIW, I think the penalty should be exactly the same as for drink driving, as if anything using a phone whilst driving is more dangerous, especially as most of the culprits I've seen have been driving vans or trucks.

There's no point in changing the penalty unless the law is enforced, though, and right now it's obvious that it isn't.

skydiver69
17th Sep 2016, 16:52
As above, there is no enforcement, so what's the point?

I see people using 'phones whilst driving most days. I've got a saved dash cam video of a builder's pickup truck veering all over the road in front of me for a couple of miles, with a commentary by me saying I thought the driver was drunk. When we got to a junction and he turned right, it was clear he was using a phone.

FWIW, I think the penalty should be exactly the same as for drink driving, as if anything using a phone whilst driving is more dangerous, especially as most of the culprits I've seen have been driving vans or trucks.

There's no point in changing the penalty unless the law is enforced, though, and right now it's obvious that it isn't.
Government cuts to the police have meant reductions across all departments including road police and response and they would have been the people giving out the most FPNs or TORS (traffic offence reports). As a result the number of tickets being issued has reduced whilst there has been a gradual increase in the number of RTCs and fatalities on the roads.

Police have very little time nowadays to do anything proactive as they are being rushed from grade 1 to grade 1, with vert little down time.

andytug
17th Sep 2016, 16:58
You can have all the laws you like, unless they're enforced they are just so much paper.
Also, if holding a piece of plastic and glass is distracting and wrong (which it is), how come holding something that's actually on fire is not?

VP959
17th Sep 2016, 17:22
Government cuts to the police have meant reductions across all departments including road police and response and they would have been the people giving out the most FPNs or TORS (traffic offence reports). As a result the number of tickets being issued has reduced whilst there has been a gradual increase in the number of RTCs and fatalities on the roads.

Police have very little time nowadays to do anything proactive as they are being rushed from grade 1 to grade 1, with vert little down time.

I agree wholeheartedly. I've got to know a traffic officer who lives in our village quite well now (he attended an RTA I was involved in two years ago). His continuous complaint about his job is that he spends only a fraction of every shift doing the sort of policing most people want. The single most crazy thing is that our city police station was closed (!) and so now the nearest custody suite is an hours drive away. Every time they pick up a suspected drunk driver, or make any other arrest, two officers are tied up for two hours just in driving to the custody suite and back! In reality, by the time they've dealt with a roadside incident, arrested one or more people, driven them to the custody suite, had them breath tested, done the paperwork and perhaps an initial interview and statement, then driven back to their duty position the chances are that it's the end of their shift.

You can have all the laws you like, unless they're enforced they are just so much paper.
Also, if holding a piece of plastic and glass is distracting and wrong (which it is), how come holding something that's actually on fire is not?

There is very strong evidence emerging that the distraction from just talking on the 'phone, even hands-free, whilst driving is significantly greater than that from something like smoking, plus smokers don't usually feel the need to constantly look at their cigarette, whereas it seems phone users often do.

Personally I'd love to see a "snoopers charter" allowed for giving decent evidence to the police for this sort of offence. Some of the dash cam recordings I've made should be enough to prosecute some of the idiots that are around. The local police information office have advised me that they cannot act on videos like this sent to them, though.

Krystal n chips
17th Sep 2016, 17:36
Despite the perceptions of some on here, driving and texting are not exclusive to any specific occupation or gender.......

Here's a few well chosen words on the subject.....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/17/driving-mentality-killed-lee-martin-phone-wheel-safety-campaigns

I agree entirely the offence should be classed in the same category of drug / drink driving, but, as Skydivers says and given his occupation he's in a position to know the factual reality here, there simply aren't enough police and Traffic police available anymore.

PN, my BiL who was a traffic officer for 20 years disputes your ( limited ) legal knowledge.....if a vehicle is parked safely, not causing an obstruction to traffic / pedestrians or access to property, then he would be happy as the vehicle was not being driven, irrespective of whether the engine was running.

As for drink driving, lets put it this way. I know an individual who feels it's perfectly acceptable to drink and drive because, as he puts it, "it's only apple juice ha ! ha !" ( cider ).....last year he started on a particular day at 11.00 and had at least four pints before 14.00 thereafter...possibly some wine although I missed this. However, on Dec 16th this year, he will do exactly the same only this year, unlike last, I will know exactly where he's parked and when......unlike last year when I wasn't sure of his vehicle location.....so this year, a little phone call will be made...which, hopefully, will be "of interest" to West Mids / West Mercia's finest.....getting social garbage like him off the road is fine by me....even more so when he will be travelling about 40miles using mainly Motorways and there is perfectly good, and frequent, public transport available to him.

radeng
17th Sep 2016, 17:56
One answer to the shortage of police would be to have the fines go to the police force in question and court fees also paid by the defendant

andytug
17th Sep 2016, 18:18
One answer to the shortage of police would be to have the fines go to the police force in question and court fees also paid by the defendant

Certainly seems to work with councils and parking tickets/fines....

pineridge
17th Sep 2016, 18:41
Radeng................

"One answer to the shortage of police would be to have the fines go to the police force in question and court fees also paid by the defendant"

A bit like the Bow Street Runners?

pax britanica
17th Sep 2016, 18:45
Much of the comment is about car drivers but what i find scary is HGV and giant tipper truck drivers doing it-for them it should be immediate loss of licence for a year no points no fines just off the road

They are frighteningly dangerous being (not) in control of 30 tons of truck and load

Pontius Navigator
17th Sep 2016, 18:49
KnC, I bow to your superior knowledge. They key word you mentioned SAFELY, if you read back I said PROPERLY PARKED.

I submit that pulled over, partly off the road side on a rural road, engine running is neither safely nor properly parked.

Love 40

Pontius Navigator
17th Sep 2016, 18:50
Pax B, I suspect many owners might dismiss them for a 6-point offence.

Art E. Fischler-Reisen
17th Sep 2016, 20:19
PN, my BiL who was a traffic officer for 20 years disputes your ( limited ) legal knowledge.....if a vehicle is parked safely, not causing an obstruction to traffic / pedestrians or access to property, then he would be happy as the vehicle was not being driven, irrespective of whether the engine was running.

The law actually says otherwise, whether your friend is happy or not!

G-CPTN
17th Sep 2016, 20:27
I have even seen drivers of school buses using a handheld mobile - whilst negotiating a narrow blind corner (actually two consecutive blind right-angle corners) with a load of schoolchildren.

BusyB
17th Sep 2016, 20:33
Not enough traffic police to look after the roads. My pet hate islackof lights on a car, lorry or bicycle. Had a single main beam heading towards me one dark night and just swerved in time to avoid a car with wheels over the centre line and only nearside light working. When I started driving you got stopped and had to report at local station with it fixed within 7 days.

Local Variation
17th Sep 2016, 20:49
I know this is about handling the device whilst driving.

For me it is another step in the right direction of banning all use of mobile devices whilst driving.

I have hands free as a core part of my job and this is now almost a weekly debate at work. Even on hands free, you hear people talk of being unaware of what happened around them on the road over the duration of the call. I too, have found that. What colour were the lights I just went through?

There was a high profile case in Leicester, where a red light jumper in a Mini hit a 5 series. The driver of the 5 series was on hands free at the time. On being hit, the 5 series mounted the kerb and struck and killed two small children.

Alot of debate about her reaction times. She was doing 36mph at the time in a 30 zone. The result was she was cleared of causing death by dangerous driving, but was banned for 18 months and fined 3 grand for careless driving. Only she will ever know whether she could have reacted better had she not been on the blower and that nagging doubt will forever live with her.

The mini driver died between the accident and the hearing (unrelated).

DType
17th Sep 2016, 21:40
Was a bit upset when F Type (= Mrs D Type) was rushed into hospital whilst on holiday in Germany. So rather than drive to the hospital to visit, I took a taxi. The driver showed remarkable multi-tasking skills, not only driving but also adjusting her make up and talking on a "hands free" phone (i.e. wedged between shoulder and head). We very nearly rear ended a stationary car waiting to turn left. The cars behind were caught out by her emergency stop, and there was a multiple shunt between the following cars. The driver looked briefly in the other (rear view) mirror, shrugged her shoulders, said "Unfall!", i.e. accident!, and drove off unscathed.
For all subsequent hospital visits, I drove myself.

skydiver69
17th Sep 2016, 21:54
One answer to the shortage of police would be to have the fines go to the police force in question and court fees also paid by the defendant
The police already get enough grief from people who think we benefit from the fines generated by speed cameras and speed awareness courses. I much prefer the idea of a well funded and independent police which isn't dependent on tackling any particular crime in order to fund itself.

radarman
17th Sep 2016, 21:58
it's obvious that you will never be able to rely on people's sense of responsibility to curb the use of mobiles while driving. And with the younger smartphone generation's growing necessity to be online 24/7 the problem is going to get much worse.

I know nothing of electronics beyond basic amps and volts, but with all the sophisticated electronic magic and hocus-pocus available to smartphone and car designers, surely it must be possible to develop some circuitry which will disable or jam a mobile phone within, say, three or four feet of the driver's seat while the vehicle's ignition is on. This would prevent the driver making or receiving calls and texts, while still allowing passengers to make calls or post inane messages on social meeja. If this requires phone and car manufacturers to build in special circuitry, let's have some politicians with balls to tell them that without this feature they aren't going to be able to sell their products in UK.

TURIN
17th Sep 2016, 22:43
In the UK we have managed to make drink driving and driving without a seatbelt on socially unacceptable. The police have as much chance of catching someone not wearing their seatbelt as they have using a mobile phone. Enforcement is only part of the solution. We have to make a collective stand.
Name and shame.

:=

Rosevidney1
17th Sep 2016, 23:08
I still think there's a need for the reintroduction of the stocks along with a board giving details of the offence IN ADDITION to fines and loss of licence.

Flash2001
17th Sep 2016, 23:20
I don't know how many times I've seen a police officer talking on a cell phone while driving but its many.
Ontario bans the use of handheld devices while driving. Would this include the use of a Policeman's mike?
I pull over and stop to answer calls but any enforcement of a "Care and control" clause (engine running etc.) simply brings the law into disrespect.

After an excellent landing etc...

G0ULI
18th Sep 2016, 00:44
Considering a third of drivers readily admit to having used a phone while driving, the wonder is that there are not more accidents than there are. Mobile phones are here to stay, drivers will find a way to carry on using them no matter what the proposed penalties. Some luxury cars are rigged out with permanent internet connections. Must make playing Pokemon Go easier while driving. Just stick the fine amount onto the road fund licence each year.

Every driver is willing to use a mobile phone when driving whether they admit it or not. If you have a phone in the car with you and it is turned on, you are using the phone, or prepared to be distracted by it. Or else, why have the phone switched on in the car in the first place. Just for emergencies? Family member sick? Spouse might need to call?

As for those sanctimonious morons that claim they don't own a mobile phone, how are you going to call for help if you come across an accident and/or you or someone else needs help urgently? How can you possibly be so selfish?

Every road traffic accident is a potential tragedy and the distraction caused by mobile phones undoubtably contributes to increasing the risk of having an accident. Rather than an outright ban, more effort needs to be made in developing systems that allow a driver to make and receive phone calls on the move as safely as possible and with minimum distraction. Perhaps call details integrated into a head up display? Or a 90 second limit on calls to and from non emergency numbers when made from a moving vehicle. Enough time to get a delivery address or inform someone of a delay.

AtomKraft
18th Sep 2016, 03:19
Folk here text while riding a motorcycle....

Takes a certain amount of dexterity to do it, but do it they do!

ExSp33db1rd
18th Sep 2016, 04:17
As for those sanctimonious morons that claim they don't own a mobile phone, how are you going to call for help if you come across an accident and/or you or someone else needs help urgently? How can you possibly be so selfish?

My God !!! How did I ever manage to reach the age of 75 - before I gave in and bought a (non-smart) mobile phone ? They hadn't even been invented until I was over 60. Good job civilisation continued to thrive before the invention of the wheel, or I wouldn't be here to talk about it now !

The only time I needed roadside assistance - and having no mobile phone - the next passing motorist stopped without bidding, but I guess one might be out of luck in the middle of the Gobi Desert ? ( but would your mobile work there anyway ?)

My home is 14km from the nearest town, and returning from the cinema at 9.00 pm last week my wife and I drove home without passing a single car in either direction, tho' the road passes through inhabited environs, so I guess I could always knock on someones' door late at night and not being the USA I needn't fear that I might look down the barrel of a shotgun.

An early experience in NZ was locking myself out of my car at one almost deserted seaside location ( of which there are many in NZ ) late at night - no romantic adventure, we took the wrong road and then decided to see where we were. Spying a light across the sand dunes, I trudged across to a holiday shack and the door was opened by a 12 yr. old girl. Whilst starting to explain my predicament her suspicious father - sans shotgun - came to the door, then offered to help me.

After about 10 minutes of fruitless effort with a bent coat hangar, the girl appeared to see what was taking so long -and promptly pushed the locked door in. The locking peg then popped up, problem solved. (I'd closed the door but only on to the safety catch ! Not A Lot Of People Know That ! )

How would a mobile phone have helped me, we were at least 50km from any possible AA mechanic, and I wasn't even a member then, and I didn't know precisely where I was, nor did I know anyone to ring in NZ at that time. QED.

fitliker
18th Sep 2016, 04:58
You should be allowed to text if you are not wearing your seatbelt and have signed your organ donor card and all the airbags are disabled . Extra privillages if your tires are balding and not properly inflated . So long as your seatbelts do not work you should be encouraged to drink very strong drink like Everclear , Polish schnapps or two star Metaxa ,smoke and text while attempting to sing along to eighties hair band music .No limits on speed while unbelted "so long as the organ donor card is signed " and you are driving naked cooking bacon while watching the morning news on your mobile device of choice on your morning commute :)

FullOppositeRudder
18th Sep 2016, 05:15
In Canberra they have road signs which should be self explanatory ... ....

DRIVE N TXT
U B NEXT

2 sheds
18th Sep 2016, 07:29
PN, my BiL who was a traffic officer for 20 years disputes your ( limited ) legal knowledge.....if a vehicle is parked safely, not causing an obstruction to traffic / pedestrians or access to property, then he would be happy as the vehicle was not being driven, irrespective of whether the engine was running.
What exactly does the BiL's happiness have to do with the correct interpretation of the law?


2 s

Krystal n chips
18th Sep 2016, 09:25
" What exactly does the BiL's happiness have to do with the correct interpretation of the law?

Two sheds, one possibly empty, and Art...

Many thanks for that suitably Mail readers thunderous response about the gravitas of the law and it's enforcement.

Can we take it then, you would be passionate advocates of the police diligently prosecuting the untold numbers of motorists, sitting, parked safely in say a lay by, Motorway services, industrial estates, but with their engines running.....it can get a shade cool in the UK at night and in Winter...in contrast to say, prosecuting illegal drivers, drug / drink drivers, dangerous drivers et al...who are actually driving on the roads.

PN....alas, your tennis analogy should read 15 all......you failed to include the word...rural....and lets be fair, rural driving is entirely different to urban / suburban and A road driving is it not ?....that, and your County of residence has long been an undertakers dream with the locals concept of "driving".....I have some experience of this over the years as you will have gathered.....thankfully, I have survived...just !.

As Turin says, we ( society per se ) need to educate the arrogant and indifferent morons who feel the law is not applicable to them...same as drink driving in fact.

Tankertrashnav
18th Sep 2016, 10:13
Much of the comment is about car drivers but what i find scary is HGV and giant tipper truck drivers doing it-for them it should be immediate loss of licence for a year no points no fines just off the road

Like this chap? Admittedly not an HGV strictly speaking, but big enough to do a lot of damage (the driver as well as the truck, by the look of him!)

Texting lorry driver jailed for crash - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/story/2016-09-12/texting-lorry-driver-jailed-for-crash/)

TurinI agree. For example, has any bus driver ever been prosecuted for not wearing a seat belt, when in fact they are required to wear them where fitted? Indeed, has anybody ever seen a bus driver wearing a seat belt?

sitigeltfel
18th Sep 2016, 10:27
Drivers behaviour often gives away the fact that they're using a phone.

Brake lights on, in any lane, for no apparent reason, followed by pulling over into lane 1. Then call/text complete, roar off again.

Lane "wobbling". Not concentrating whilst picking up the phone.

Young women...phone held up almost to their nose, phone in full view.

Or, it could simply be that they are from Marseille.

treadigraph
18th Sep 2016, 10:37
I still think there's a need for the reintroduction of the stocks along with a board giving details of the offence

Me too - for any anti-social behaviour. Outside all supermarkets on Saturday morning, with a supply of time-expired produce with which shoppers can show their abhorrence of the miscreants' deeds.

As for those sanctimonious morons that claim they don't own a mobile phone, how are you going to call for help if you come across an accident and/or you or someone else needs help urgently? How can you possibly be so selfish?

I have one and use it when necessary. Unfortunately a large percentage of the UK population seem to think the world will spin off its axis if they cease to be in constant communication with their loved ones or the world in general, either in conversation or via Twatter, Farcebook or whichever other form of social media is the current comfort blanket.

You only have to walk along a busy high street to see how many morons there are, surgically attached to their MePhone and totally divorced from the reality of the world around them. Then they get in their car...

ShyTorque
18th Sep 2016, 10:46
With the baked beans still in the can?

treadigraph
18th Sep 2016, 10:51
Oh yes. Catering size.

VP959
18th Sep 2016, 10:59
I'd support public "naming and shaming" wholeheartedly.

I've seen evidence that it works in practice, from the time that we lived in Scotland. Our local Sheriff was very fond of giving "admonishments" as a part of the sentence he'd hand out to miscreants. Pretty much everyone would buy the local paper primarily to read that weeks admonishments, as they were beautifully worded and, I believe, there was an obligation on the local press to publish them in full. They tended to apply a fair bit of deterrent pressure from public opinion on the miscreants, unlike the handing out of ASBOs here, that are considered by many miscreants to be a "badge of honour".

Pontius Navigator
18th Sep 2016, 13:00
Our local rag published names, addresses (locality) offence and fine every week from all the local caughts (sic).

Pontius Navigator
18th Sep 2016, 14:05
KnC, Lincolnshire indeed, but they rarely pull onto the verge unless at a junction or blind spot and prefer to phone when going round the bend.

C130 Techie
18th Sep 2016, 19:47
I walk along a stretch of local road which is subject to road works and so the traffic is usually moving slowly. It seems that every other driver (regardless of age or gender) has a mobile phone in their hand. I often make a point of saying something particularly where there is a chance of being heard (window down). It amazes me how much these people, who are obviously in the wrong, have so much to say (mostly abusive) for themselves when caught out. Some of the excuses are quite pathetic.

Lancelot37
18th Sep 2016, 23:10
Simple solution, banned from driving for 2 years and car crushed.

A young couple came into a restaurant which we were in recently. How nice I thought, he's brought her out for a meal. They sat down and each took out their mobile phones. I remarked on this and my wife replied "Perhaps they are texting each other"

reynoldsno1
19th Sep 2016, 01:36
http://www.visiontimes.com/uploads/2015/03/texing-on-the-go-336x600.jpg

The really curious thing is that he's wearing a crash helmet ... not typical in Thailand ...

oldpax
19th Sep 2016, 05:04
"Radarman "said it.There should be a jamming device as soon as the car is started so you cannot use your phone.Oh yes and a penalty if it is found to have been tampered with.

Ogre
19th Sep 2016, 11:17
As I relate when I'm doing safety related presentations, at 80 kmh you are traveling at roughly 20 metres a second. The average human reaction time is just under 0.25 of second, so if the guy in front slams on his anchors you are almost five metres closer to him before you can actually do anything!

This tends to get a few nods of understanding, however the best phone / driving story I had was when I was going to work one day. The guy in the van next to me was obviously using his phone but his employer had very kindly put a phone number on the van so I could phone up and tell him how well his employee was driving.

I took a note of this number, so when I got to work I phoned it and asked to speak to whoever the transport manager was as I had a comment to make about one of his drivers.

When i got the guy on the other end, I give him the vehicle registration and told him his driver had been on his phone whilst driving down this road at this time. The guy sounded very bored with the whole thing, but took down the details I gave him. Once he had everything written down (he was obviously reading from a script or a form) he asked "So exactly what made you think our employee was on his phone while he was driving?"

"Well I could be wrong, he might not have been talking on his phone"
"Oh well that's not so bad"
"No", say I "He might have been watching a video because he was holding the phone in front of his face with his earpiece in...."

There was a couple of moments silence before a resigned "I'll investigate and warn him of his behaviour"

Nervous SLF
19th Sep 2016, 11:32
This morning whilst I was being a pedestrian waiting to cross a busy junction the traffic was stopped by a red traffic light.Upon the light changing to green
two of the 3 lanes of traffic moved forward but the white line painting truck in the center lane stayed where it was causing the vehicles behind it to have
to swerve around it. The reason it was stopped was because the driver had his phone up in front of his face and he was sending a text message. I tried to
attract the attention of a Police car on the other side of the junction but alas he moved away before seeing me.:(

yellowtriumph
19th Sep 2016, 11:47
"Radarman "said it.There should be a jamming device as soon as the car is started so you cannot use your phone.Oh yes and a penalty if it is found to have been tampered with.
How will that cope with passengers legally trying to use their phones?

Groundbased
19th Sep 2016, 12:33
I'm one for the technology solution. I'm sure a method to inhibit the device in the car is feasible. I would also link to insurance, in the same way as the black box gets insurance premiums down it should be possible to demonstrate a reduction in risk where the drivers phone is inhibited and feed this through to premiums.

The passenger thing is tricky, and not just that. I am the registered keeper of both our cars. I could quite legitimately be a passenger in the car my wife drives, and use my phone when in the passenger seat.

Some kind of pairing with a "Driver mode" must be possible, with proper analysis.

VP959
19th Sep 2016, 12:45
Given the level of control and data transfer between newer cars and phones, it should be perfectly possible to prevent some of the specific phone functions from working whilst the vehicle is in motion. For example, when I turn my car on it automatically pairs with my phone, checks that the in-car copy of the phone's number list is up to date and switches the phone to hands free mode, all without me having to intervene. The same display unit in the car also has speed sensing, and, for example, puts up warnings if you try and do something like alter the sat nav address location whilst the car is moving.

So, if the car is already controlling the phone and can control things based on speed sensing, then it seems a simple step to just disable a phone when the vehicle is moving.

I can't really see a problem with just going for something a lot simpler, though, like a very short range mobile phone jammer that stops all the phones inside the vehicle from working when the vehicle is in motion. There would be a minor inconvenience to passengers, but would not being able to use a phone whilst on the move be a really big deal?

PDR1
19th Sep 2016, 12:48
I'm one for the technology solution. I'm sure a method to inhibit the device in the car is feasible. I would also link to insurance, in the same way as the black box gets insurance premiums down it should be possible to demonstrate a reduction in risk where the drivers phone is inhibited and feed this through to premiums.

The passenger thing is tricky, and not just that. I am the registered keeper of both our cars. I could quite legitimately be a passenger in the car my wife drives, and use my phone when in the passenger seat.

Some kind of pairing with a "Driver mode" must be possible, with proper analysis.
...and just how will that recognise that I'm in a telephone conference while my chauffeur drives me to my next appointment? How will it recognise that Shardonay and Kevin are on facebook to distract themselves from the screaming row their parents are having in the front seat?

Having an idea is not enough - you have to think it through...

PDR

PDR1
19th Sep 2016, 12:49
but would not being able to use a phone whilst on the move be a really big deal?

Only if you have a life.

PDR

VP959
19th Sep 2016, 12:54
Only if you have a life.

PDR
Depends where you live, I suppose. Around here mobile reception is exceptionally poor just two or three miles outside the city, and has been for years. I cannot get a signal at home (never have been able to in the past 16 years) and I know the few places where I can pull over in the car and make a call. There's no point in calling on the move, hands-free, as the call will inevitably break up in a black spot.

As a consequence, my mobile phone is rarely on, pretty much only when I'm in the car, or out and about in the city. Few of the local villages have a usable mobile signal around here, which can be a nuisance, but also a blessing if you've gone to the pub for a quiet pint or a meal, as you can be pretty sure no one will be using a mobile phone in there.

cattletruck
19th Sep 2016, 13:16
Back in the day I used to know a lot of girls who could send text messages without looking at their phone, in fact they could even do it with the phone behind their back - texting that is.

This was the pre-smartphone era, today with them new phones you have to look at the software keyboard to operate it, which is not helped by the plethora of emoticons available. Is there an emoticon for "can't text, driving"?

As a regular train commuter who constantly observes people engrossed in their personal devices, I now refer to the crowded disembarkment at the train station as the zombie parade. And to think these inconsiderate zombies get behind the wheel of a car.

Pace
19th Sep 2016, 13:25
I was in Italy and used the google maps navigation on my phone! GPS on the rental car 15 euro a day my phone free )

Luckily there is s very good voice command so you can lay the phone on the passenger seat
But many don't use that function or are hard of hearing and drive with the phone in one hand as a navigator peering at it and the road

One thing if you do use the google navigation your phone quickly runs down on battery life
How would blocking the phone allow its use for navigation which if used correctly is perfectly safe

ExXB
19th Sep 2016, 14:29
Cattle truck, lots of crack berries, with real keyboards still around. But I doubt if the blind texting could be done without the tester being distracted.

Cell phones, hands free, hands on, whatever are distracting. I can't even do it as a passenger (and known back seat driver) without being distracted.

Mel Effluent
19th Sep 2016, 14:59
I agree that texting or using a handset normally should be banned and have appropriate sanctions. However, technology can make a real difference. My new car links directly to the phone: I can make and receive calls and Whatsapp messages, use the voice command to get directions and information from the internet without taking my eyes off the road at all.

I take issue with the assertion that talking on the phone is distracting. I spent 30 years using 2 or 3 radio systems simultaneously while flying a helicopter (mostly without an autopilot) and it didn't seem to be a problem. (Apologies for aviation content!)

Groundbased
19th Sep 2016, 15:10
...and just how will that recognise that I'm in a telephone conference while my chauffeur drives me to my next appointment? How will it recognise that Shardonay and Kevin are on facebook to distract themselves from the screaming row their parents are having in the front seat?

Having an idea is not enough - you have to think it through...

PDR
Why the flame?

If you read my post you'll notice I mentioned the fact that there are use cases which would be problemmatic and would need proper analysis.

I'm not going to do that analysis to wrote a post response on a forum. But I believe the issues could be overcome. What won't happen is people voluntarily stopping this behaviour.

Peter-RB
19th Sep 2016, 15:32
If the mobile is speaking to you through the car system and all you need do is reply, then how different is that from having a pax or wife and or plus three of four children(are we there yet) going at you on some sort of conversation.
Sat navs burst into instructions that cannot be answered but you can take your hand off the wheel and alter whilst still making progress....so just where is the line drawn.

Common sense is not really that common, for a mobile in ya pocket or on the pax seat will always grab the drivers attention.so why not enforce a blanking system to cut Mobs off once inside the cage of the car or wagon or van it seems a no brainer..to me...but then I am old and not really controlled by the two seconds to answer any mobile..!! :ugh:

PDR1
19th Sep 2016, 16:23
Why the flame?

If you read my post you'll notice I mentioned the fact that there are use cases which would be problemmatic and would need proper analysis.

I'm not going to do that analysis to wrote a post response on a forum.

I guess I'm suggesting this doesn't really need "proper analysis" to see these glaring problems with the proposal - they should emerge self-evidently a matter of milli-seconds after the first "what if". Deeper analysis would start discovering other snags like how this jamming signal could be contained such that it only afflicted the inside of the car and didn't become a rolling DoS attack on the public street.

Before continuing, I'll just say that texting (even if just reading) while driving is reprehensible and should attract the death penalty as I suggested on the first page of this topic. I would make exceptions for cars stuck in traffic jams, inching forwards at one or two cars' lengths a minute for the good and simple reason that in the Real World[tm] there is no significantly increased hazard arising from doing so. I appreciate the zealots would disagree with that, which is the reason why human societies through the centuries have generally burned zealots at the stake to encourage the rest to behave.

On phoning - My car has an embedded hands-free system and I do use it because it is functionally identical to having a conversation with a passenger. If you're going to make THAT illegal then you will have to change the law to allow for wives to be gagged and clubbed into unconsciousness (not in itself a bad thing, but I can see some resistance to the concept emerging from the extremist end of the feminist movement). My wife's car doesn't have a hands-free system. If I'm driving that and my phone rings I simply pass it to my wife and say "please answer it" (actually I usually don't need to because she's not as thick as many of the anti-telephone-taliban and can grasp the nature of the request without actual words). She then answers the call. If it needs information from me she speaks to me (an old-fashioned technique, but still remarkably effective outside geordieland or essex). If really needed she'll switch it to speakerphone and hold it near me for my input. I'm quite capable of doing this because I'm concentrating on the driving, and if at any time more concentration is needed I simply stop talking/listening until the road situation permits it again - exactly the same as for a conversation with a passenger.

You frequently hear sweeping assertions like "talking on a hands free system is the same as driving after three litres of vodka and 200 dry martinis" or similar, which is arrant nonsense because the driver can instantly stop any phone conversation whereas it takes at least several minutes to recover from a large alcohol intake. On the other hand I have driven with conditions that are far more hazardous/distracting, like when I have hayfever, or when I'm dying for a pee and it's still 20 miles to the next motorway exit, or with a screaming baby/child in the back, or after being vomited over by a sick child, or with a developing visual-disturbance migraine on a motorway with 20 miles to the next available exit etc etc etc.

Most of this "thing" about using mobile phones when driving is a strange psychosis verging on a clinical phobia suffered by a vocal few, mostly of the dinosaur tendency, who simply cannot cope with any technological change after 1948. They feel that nobody should be ALLOWED to use mobile phones because there were no mobiles used in "Brief Encounter". Obviously this is more a matter for discussion with personal brain care specialists than anything else...

PDR

G-CPTN
19th Sep 2016, 16:31
What about map-reading (such as an AtoZ) whilst driving?

Some people can read (and comprehend) whilst listening to (and understanding) a conversation.

It's called multitasking.

Octopussy2
19th Sep 2016, 16:37
There seems to be little real doubt that talking on a handsfree device (while, of course, not as distracting as texting/using a non-handsfree device) can impair performance.

It's not the same as talking to others in a car, because passengers see at the same time as you the situation you're reacting to and automatically fall silent because they can see you need to concentrate. Most of the time you don't even notice this dynamic, but it definitely exists. That may not be true of small children, but you don't have to justify not responding to them they way you do to an adult - you can just ignore them until you're in a position to speak again.

Compare that you suddenly falling silent when you know you're on speaker to a roomful of colleagues plus the big boss - chances are you will prioritize formulating an answer, or at least attempting to.

That said, we all know the single factor which most impairs your driving is the combination of (a) having your kids in the car, (b) being on the school run and (c) being late on the school run ;) I'm generally a damn fine driver, but that combo is (not yet literally, thank God) fatal for me.

Pontius Navigator
19th Sep 2016, 16:43
G-CPTN, we have seen a man reading a book as he drove.

PDR 1 THAT illegal then you will have to change the law to allow for wives to be gagged and clubbed into unconsciousness (not in itself a bad thing, SWMBO would definitely object and so would I having to wait until she recovered sufficiently to drive me home.

Doctor Cruces
19th Sep 2016, 16:47
Nearly got mown down on a zebra crossing last week by a driver on his mobile!

AtomKraft
19th Sep 2016, 16:49
I've never personally, seen what the problem is with yakking on the phone while driving.

listening to the radio is ok- and legal.

Singing along to System of a Down with concussion rattling your chest like sonic waves is legal......

Having an argument about your wifes' navigation, or any other topic is normal- and legal?

Using a 'hands-free' is legal.

There's no "legal" difference between using a non hands free and a 'hands free' even though you might be driving an auto, and so need not spare a hand for gear changing....

And so on.

Frankly, the distraction is in the conversation, not the pinning of the handset to ones' lug! And clearly that's the same conversation with the 'legal' hands free.....

For my own part, I'm always yakking on my non hands free mobile while driving and so far, no drama.

In fact, I'm probably paying more attention- and better attention, despite my phone use, than some of the idiots who seem barely able to supervise their own progress using their undivided concentration.

One rule rarely fits all....as always.

treadigraph
19th Sep 2016, 16:59
Atomkraft, you have an ATPL and have been trained to fly aircraft and talk to ATC at the same time, which I suggest gives you a far greater capability to safely drive and use a hands free than the average moron using a mobile while driving on the road.


the rule fits the lowest common denominator I'm afraid.


And just how important is that conversation or text? Not enough to kill me or my family or friends...

barry lloyd
19th Sep 2016, 17:00
At The British Touring Car racing at Silverstone yesterday was a severely mangled car (a genuine example apparently), with a large board next to it, simply saying 'Texting Kills'.

It occurred to me that a few of those strategically placed around the country might provide a salutary reminder to those who cannot keep their thumbs to themselves.

AtomKraft
19th Sep 2016, 17:08
Treadi

Point taken. So why do we all have to treated like the village idiot?

There's Rules in place for 'Careless', 'Reckless' and 'Dangerous" driving.

There's 'Driving without due care and attention' too.

Might not one of those be sufficient for prosecuting someone who causes an accident because his attention was diverted by his 'hands free' or normal mobile?

I think the answer is most likely.......

YES!:ugh:

(Edit to add- of course the conversation is not important enough to justify killing you, or your family- but neither was the journey.
So, shall we ban journeys too?)

andytug
19th Sep 2016, 17:11
The technology already exists. Pokemon Go (yeah, yeah, I know....) senses from GPS whether you're moving at more than 10kph and if so stops you racking up distance to hatch eggs, so you can't cheat,the idea is that you should be walking. So just use the same to disable the keypad above a certain speed, no dialling, answering or texting until you stop.

Really the best idea is to make it socially unacceptable, like drink driving and smoking (to some extent), but that can't be done overnight.

andytug
19th Sep 2016, 17:15
Oh, and holding the phone is lazyitis, there are many apps to allow hands free, auto answer, read text, dictate reply, etc (I use Drivemode) and most if not all smartphones have a speakerphone. HTC bundled an excellent car app with their phones which I miss having. Shouldn't need to hold the thing at all.

Turbine D
19th Sep 2016, 18:09
AK,
One rule rarely fits all....as always.
Very True!

Here's one from a lady in Connecticut that I bet hasn't been thought of:

Gazing into the Audi convertible in front of me, I realized that there were moving images on the GPS display. I looked more carefully and saw that the driver had his cell phone propped up in the display area and was live streaming a talk show to watch while “driving.”

Sitting there in traffic, I watched the eyes of the Audi driver in his rear view mirror and he was barely glancing at the road: so much so that when the car in front of him took his turn at the stop sign, the Audi driver coasted right through behind almost getting t-boned by the car from Main Street, who had the right of way.

Even more alarming is that the Audi driver got on to the Merritt, pulled into the left lane and sped away. I prayed that he got to his destination safely and without hurting anyone.

FYI, the Merritt is a divided highway with access and exit ramps.

ShyTorque
19th Sep 2016, 18:22
At The British Touring Car racing at Silverstone yesterday was a severely mangled car (a genuine example apparently), with a large board next to it, simply saying 'Texting Kills'.

Racing a touring car and texting is just asking for trouble.

PDR1
19th Sep 2016, 18:27
It's not the same as talking to others in a car, because passengers see at the same time as you the situation you're reacting to and automatically fall silent because they can see you need to concentrate.

You clearly haven't met my wife... :)

Seriously - this is based on the assumption that the passenger you're talking to (a) can see hazards and (b) can respond to them. If the passenger is a non-driver or a child they may not recognise situations that need attention.

PDR

treadigraph
19th Sep 2016, 18:30
AK, yes it is careless, dangerous, reckless driving or whatever, but while most drivers recognise that speeding, jumping lights, dangerous overtaking, etc is irresponsible, far fewer seem to understand just how stupid using a hand held for talking or texting while driving actually is. Hence the need for a separate offence, as with drink driving.

The journeys aren't in themselves especially dangerous, it's the manner in which they are undertaken.

So why should any phone call be considered so important it must be answered while driving?

Racing a touring car and texting is just asking for trouble.

I've never bothered, I can't run and text at the same time...

PDR1
19th Sep 2016, 18:36
Atomkraft, you have an ATPL and have been trained to fly aircraft and talk to ATC at the same time

Interesting.

How many hours were allocated to this in the syllabus?

Was it all classroom training or was it done during cockpit time?

What specific techniques were taught?

How was the competence then tested - were there specific items in written or practical exams?

PDR

Geordie_Expat
19th Sep 2016, 18:37
Atom and Treadi,


Can I just ask why having an ATPL makes anyone more able to be stupid enough to use a mobile while driving? How vain is that ?

PDR1
19th Sep 2016, 18:38
Two minds with but one thought, Geordie...

PDR

Pace
19th Sep 2016, 18:40
Talking about wives women forget phones I have seen quite a few putting on make up while driving using the sunvisor mirror and some with handheld mirrors

treadigraph
19th Sep 2016, 18:52
Can I just ask why having an ATPL makes anyone more able to be stupid enough to use a mobile while driving? How vain is that ?

I'm not saying that they are more able to be stupid, and I don't think they should. But they are probably more capable of driving and using hands free (not hand helds) than the average village idiot. But there are many times more village idiots on our roads than ATPLs, hence my support for the increase in penalties and distinct legislation.

Geordie_Expat
19th Sep 2016, 19:15
If you read Atomkraft's post he says


For my own part, I'm always yakking on my non hands free mobile while driving and so far, no drama.



That was what I was referring to.

treadigraph
19th Sep 2016, 19:40
Well, no drama that he's noticed, anyway! :p

Peter-RB
20th Sep 2016, 07:01
What about eating an Apple or Pear, or Pie.or Choccie bar..or swigging from a pop bottle whilst driving...?

PDR1
20th Sep 2016, 08:55
What about eating an Apple or Pear, or Pie.or Choccie bar..or swigging from a pop bottle whilst driving...?

Oh I'm sure we'll be told that CPLs get five days of special training in advanced fruit-eating as well...

PDR

surely not
20th Sep 2016, 09:07
Re the earlier post about train commuters engrossed in their mobile phones, at least it has stopped the elbow fights and territorial wars that used to occur as people opened up their newspapers to read. Not sure why you think catching up on news via a mobile on a train is so different to reading a newspaper?

PDR1 has it spot on when he asks why talking on a phone is so different to talking with others in the car, or singing along to music. If you cannot talk to the driver whilst they are driving it would make the job of driving instructor impossible, plus giving directions to the driver would be a thing of the past.

The massive reaction on here is understandable given that the media have started to campaign against the evils of mobile usage whilst driving, but I have not yet seen any graphs that show how big the problem is.

What percentage of road accidents are caused by the use of mobile phones? What percentage of road accident deaths are caused by the use of mobile phones? How does this compare with other leading causes such as driving too fast for the road you are on?

If I am stuck on the M25, a not infrequent event, and would be moving faster if I was walking, I have been known to text ahead to advise of the delay. I didn't cause any more danger doing that than if I had been distracted by something unusual outside the car. At speed it would be a different matter entirely. The reactions of some on this thread suggest it might be bad for their blood pressure, therefore should this thread be banned?

PDR1
20th Sep 2016, 09:19
I'd suggest that those who clearly find that driving at walking pace and holding a conversation exceeds their abilities should be surrendering their driving licenses because they're clearly clinically unsuited to command of a moving vehicle.

PDR

Chesty Morgan
20th Sep 2016, 09:32
Extrapolate that to motorway speeds and you should find that most people don't have a problem with that either.

Hempy
20th Sep 2016, 09:48
The thread isn't about talking and driving, it's about texting and driving. One you can do whilst still looking at the road ahead. The other not so.

surely not
20th Sep 2016, 10:07
PDR and Chesty, agreed re holding conversations at any speed.

Hempy the thread drift has come about because the anti mobile phone brigade has brought it into the thread. They have suggested that even hands free conversations should be banned, which beggars belief really.

ExXB
20th Sep 2016, 10:10
I realise that providing facts are unlikely to change people's views however I found this study to be very interesting:

http://www.nsc.org/DistractedDrivingDocuments/Cognitive-Distraction-White-Paper.pdf

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that nine percent of all drivers at any given time are using cell phones, and the National Safety Council estimates about one in four motor vehicle crashes involve cell phone use at the time of the crash.

This paper will take an in-depth look at why hands-free cell phone use while driving is dangerous.

The National Safety Council has compiled more than 30 research studies and reports by scientists around the world that used a variety of research methods, to compare driver performance with handheld and hands-free phones. All of these studies show hands- free phones offer no safety benefit when driving. Conversation occurs on both handheld and hands-free phones. The cognitive distraction from paying attention to conversation – from listening and responding to a disembodied voice – contributes to numerous driving impairments.

(emphasis added)

This study also shows that driving while talking on the phone results in many more accidents than texting and driving.

Food for thought

radar101
20th Sep 2016, 10:11
The thread isn't about talking and driving, it's about texting and driving. One you can do whilst still looking at the road ahead. The other not so.


So why do I see so many drivers turn to face their passenger while holding a conversation?

Hempy
20th Sep 2016, 10:15
umm, because they are dumb?

tartare
20th Sep 2016, 10:16
Why doth one feelest the need to enquireth about driving whilst texting?
Don't you mean driving while texting? :rolleyes:

PDR1
20th Sep 2016, 10:34
Why doth one feelest the need to enquireth about driving whilst texting?
Don't you mean driving while texting? :rolleyes:



In this context it's a conjunction and as such the two words are interchangeable - use of "whilst" in place of "while" would only be grammatically or syntactically incorrect where it's used as a verb, preposition or noun. ie you can say "see you in a while" but not "see you in a whilst".



PDR

ShyTorque
20th Sep 2016, 10:40
What about eating an Apple or Pear, or Pie.or Choccie bar..or swigging from a pop bottle whilst driving...?

It's difficult if you're on the phone but as long as you can steer with your knees, that's OK by some I've seen....

PDR1
20th Sep 2016, 10:43
The thread isn't about talking and driving, it's about texting and driving. One you can do whilst still looking at the road ahead. The other not so.

This is true, but essentially there's little discussion about this because I've yet to find anyone who supports texting whilst driving. There's scope for debate around texting whilst stationary or driving at walking pace in a traffic jam, but the anti-telephone-taliban drifted the thread into a luddite opposition to non-carrier-pigeon communications.

We get things like:


And just how important is that conversation or text? Not enough to kill me or my family or friends...

Well actually you can't know, you're just being judgemental. There are many circumstances in which it CAN be extremely important that someone is contacted for life-and-death or massive financial reasons. I once took a phone call in my car which advised me that my daughter had been taken to hospital with a life-threatening injury - I suppose you would find it acceptable to receive that news by second-class post.

The other thing is that when the phone rings I cannot know whether it's Obama urgently asking my advice on a critical defence decision* or my wife asking if I fed the dogs before leaving the house. Obviously if I *did* know I would reject the first call but answer the second, because rejecting the second would be life-threatening.

PDR

* Ok, so I may have made that one up, but it could happen... :)

G-CPTN
20th Sep 2016, 11:31
My brother used to say that he left decisions such as whether to move house or have another child to his wife while he concentrated on the major decisions such as whether the Americans should pull out of VietNam.

Chesty Morgan
20th Sep 2016, 11:38
If one texts slowly, for example - a letter every 5 seconds, is that any less safe than generally glancing around, looking at the stereo, adjusting temperature controls, or picking your nose and inspecting the bounty?

Nobody pays 100% attention. Ever.

G-CPTN
20th Sep 2016, 11:45
I was taught to give 2/3rds of my attention whilst driving to what was happening in front of me and 1/3rd to what was happening behind (monitoring the rear-view mirrors).
It is important to be aware of what is happening around you.
Included in the forward view was identifying areas where evasive action could be taken (collision avoidance) - ie a safe place to have a crash if you want to be blunt.

G-CPTN
20th Sep 2016, 12:03
Fatal beer lorry crash photo released as warning (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-37411137).

VP959
20th Sep 2016, 12:05
If one texts slowly, for example - a letter every 5 seconds, is that any less safe than generally glancing around, looking at the stereo, adjusting temperature controls, or picking your nose and inspecting the bounty?

Nobody pays 100% attention. Ever.
True, but then an awful lot of accidents have been caused because people weren't looking out the windows of their car whilst driving.

Some examples. I've been involved in three accidents in the past 30 years:

- The first was when I fell asleep at the wheel, having been awake on a transatlantic flight to LHR then an early morning shuttle to GLA. The accident was caused because I wasn't looking where I was going.

- The second was three years ago. I was stopped at a red traffic light and another car drove into the back of me. The accident was caused because the other driver wasn't looking where she was going.

- The third was two years ago, resulted in my car being written off. I was stopped behind other stationary traffic waiting for a car in front to turn right. A car travelling at around 40 mph hit the rear of my car and pushed it forward into the rear of the 4x4 in front. The cause was that the driver of the other car was looking in her handbag, that was on the passenger seat, for something that was making a rattling noise.

All three of these accidents were caused by not paying adequate attention to the road ahead.

I'll chuck another incident in. Read this post: http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/584283-come-home-amelia-all-forgiven-4.html#post9509936 . The cause of that incident was the two of us having checks repeatedly interrupted by radio calls. If we hadn't been distracted by the need to constantly answer calls from the tower about the airfield incident (another aircraft making an emergency landing following a bird strike, which altered our taxy route) then we'd almost certainly not have made that error.

The message is very clear. Distraction of any sort detracts from your ability to perform a task. It then just comes down to how great a degradation in performance we are prepared to accept.

I know that the entertainment system and sat nav in my car (both touch screen operated) are distracting, far more so than when I had cars with just a radio and just two controls that could be operated by feel alone. Years ago we learned about the capability of ancillary controls to distract, and older aircraft had switches and knobs that could easily be identified by touch alone, by being very different shapes and sizes. That's an unacceptable option to use in cars, as it would upset the all-important showroom appearance, and arguably stuff in cars is now more likely to cause a distraction.

treadigraph
20th Sep 2016, 13:23
Well actually you can't know, you're just being judgemental. There are many circumstances in which it CAN be extremely important that someone is contacted for life-and-death or massive financial reasons. Not to the point of killing or seriously injuring somebody it isn't.

PDR, supposing the distraction of the news of your daughter's injuries (I hope she made a swift and full recovery btw) caused you to knock down and seriously/fatally injure somebody else's child. Would that be OK?

I'm actually not against hands free calls in cars, but having had my right of way very dangerously compromised by arseholes driving and using hand held phones on at least four or five occasions in the last several years, I feel inclined to be judgemental and find in favour of getting such people off the road.

PDR1
20th Sep 2016, 14:09
Not to the point of killing or seriously injuring somebody it isn't.


I remain unconvinced that the use of a HANDS FREE phone in such circumstances inherently produces an unacceptable risk.

A couple of weeks ago I flew to Rome. My journey wasn't essential - call it 25% business and 75% recreation. I seriously doubt anyone on the whole aeroplane (including the ones in the front seats) could claim that their journey was absolutely essential. In flying at all there is a risk to people on the ground if a malfunction or terrorist intervention should result in the aeroplane being subjected to the usual magnetic attraction towards a school full of children, hospital full of babies or whatever.

Was anyone's trip worth risking killing uninvolved people on the ground? Of course not. Is that a reason for prohibiting all flying? Of course not.


PDR, supposing the distraction of the news of your daughter's injuries (I hope she made a swift and full recovery btw) caused you to knock down and seriously/fatally injure somebody else's child. Would that be OK?


Is it relevant? What if the call had been to my wife, sitting next to me? How would it be any different that the call was made to her and she then told me? I might add that my family have a rare blood type, which means that if anyone requires hospital treatment involving surgery the first thing that must happen is all the members of my side of the family must be called in to donate blood before surgery can be attempted. So for me failing to answer the phone could kill someone.

PDR

ExXB
20th Sep 2016, 14:46
PDR, please read the study I linked to on the previous page. The answers to your questions are there.

PDR1
20th Sep 2016, 14:54
I have, and I remain unconvinced. The study does not explain how conversing on a built-in hands free phone is a greater hazard than conversing with other car occupants. It is selective in its references and sketchy on its methodologies. It contains sweeping assertions like "multi-tasking is a myth" - I know two learned people (one a computational neuroscientist and the other a cognitive psychologist) who would assert, based on physical and experimental evidence (respectively) that multi-tasking very much "is a thing" (as the young'n's say these days).

People latch onto these sorts of studies more as a matter of confirmation bias than of critical assessment IMHO.

PDR

ExXB
20th Sep 2016, 17:43
Have a look at the box at the bottom of page 8. I think it explains it nicely.

Oh, and this study is a study of 30 other studies. Obviously this can only be a summary of their findings. In the appendix they list the studies and their key findings, including those that found that cell phone is worse than in car conversations.

If you don't want to read it, that's fine.

Edited to add: I did a search for multitasking and came across this quote People can't multitask very well, and when people say they can, they're deluding themselves," said neuroscientist Earl Miller. And, he said, "The brain is very good at deluding itself."

Rather than divert this thread even further off topic, I'll leave my comments at that.

ehwatezedoing
20th Sep 2016, 18:03
I remain unconvinced. The study does not explain how conversing on a built-in hands free phone is a greater hazard than conversing with other car occupants.

An incomming danger caught in the corner of an eye should make your conversing mate in the car stop talking. He/she could even give you a warning.

Not a remote chance of that with a phone, hand free or not.

ShyTorque
20th Sep 2016, 18:07
I've noticed over the years that some folk are of the opinion that "it will never happen to me" and will always remain unconvinced and in denial.

Seat belts, crash helmets, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, mobile phones, etc.

This is where natural selection sometimes kicks in.

PDR1
20th Sep 2016, 18:10
An incomming danger caught in the corner of an eye should make your conversing mate in the car stop talking. He/she could even give you a warning.


Only if they happen to be looking out of the window. My wife will usually be either lying back with her eyes closed or browsing the paper while I'm driving, so that's very unlikely to happen.

PDR

cavortingcheetah
20th Sep 2016, 18:14
In North Korea, if caught using a mobile whilst motoring, you're wired up to a load of explosives and then made to dial up the number that sets the lot off.

Local Variation
20th Sep 2016, 21:11
PDR1,

As someone who uses hands free day in day as part of my job, I can tell you 100% that it is a destraction from driving. There is simply no comparison to talking to people inside the car. Peripheral vision and speed control is impaired. Seeing (as in acknowledging the processing of realising) the bigger picture ahead in busy traffic goes right out the window.

I now operate on a 'take not make' call policy and keeps calls to an absolute minimum. I don't take calls in built up areas or roadworks (such as M1 through Northamptonshire and the like) and invariably let it go to voice mail if I can regardless of where I am.

You don't need to be in the wrong to be in an accident. The police will check to see if you have been on the phone and from there on, you are on thin ice.

ricardian
20th Sep 2016, 22:20
In this context it's a conjunction and as such the two words are interchangeable - use of "whilst" in place of "while" would only be grammatically or syntactically incorrect where it's used as a verb, preposition or noun. ie you can say "see you in a while" but not "see you in a whilst".



PDR
And in some parts of the North of England the word "while" can mean "until" - thus the road sign saying "wait while red light shows" can have two quite different meanings

419
21st Sep 2016, 00:15
For my own part, I'm always yakking on my non hands free mobile while driving and so far, no drama.

I wonder how many people who regularly drive whilst over the legal alcohol limit have justified their actions using a similar argument.
"I'm always driving home after having far too many beers and so far, no drama"

It will always be "so far, no drama" right up until the time you kill a totally innocent person or two.

fitliker
21st Sep 2016, 03:15
A friend told me about his neighbour's uncle who drove home after being stuck in the pub for more than was required to be one over the eight .
He noticed a car parked in the middle of the lawn and asked the chap why he had risked driving home when he was obviously drunk. The short answer was that he had to drive as he could not FU%%%%G walk :)

Octopussy2
21st Sep 2016, 08:37
A very large company of my acquaintance has just announced a policy that employees are not to make or take calls whilst driving - including on handsfree devices. This will cost them in terms of productivity because until now it has been normal for employees to make handsfree work calls while driving between offices. The company has read the studies, is convinced by them and has introduced the policy as part of its overall commitment to employee safety at work.

treadigraph
21st Sep 2016, 09:14
PDR - your post 108:

Is it relevant?
Yes it is. Can you really justify destroying somebody else's life in that manner? I hope not.

As for you flight to Rome - how the hell is that relevant? The debate isn't about travel - we all travel to live, to work and for recreation; the point is we should all minimise risk to those around as far as possible when we do so.

andytug
21st Sep 2016, 09:43
A very large company of my acquaintance has just announced a policy that employees are not to make or take calls whilst driving - including on handsfree devices. This will cost them in terms of productivity because until now it has been normal for employees to make handsfree work calls while driving between offices. The company has read the studies, is convinced by them and has introduced the policy as part of its overall commitment to employee safety at work.
My employer has had that policy for several years now, though one wonders how much is employee safety and how much is the wish to avoid any company liability in the case of an accident......

PDR1
21st Sep 2016, 09:55
PDR1,

As someone who uses hands free day in day as part of my job, I can tell you 100% that it is a destraction from driving.


As someone who occasionally uses hands-free calling in my day-to-day life I can tell you 100% that it is not a distraction from driving.

Anyone can make sweeping, unsupported assertions - they mean nothing and do not contribute anything of value to the discussion.


There is simply no comparison to talking to people inside the car.


Yes there is - I am making it, and at the monent it seems like a pretty good one.


Peripheral vision and speed control is impaired. Seeing (as in acknowledging the processing of realising) the bigger picture ahead in busy traffic goes right out the window.


If you experience these problems you need to learn to focus better on your driving - I'd suggest that perhaps you might consider staying off the public road until you have addressed the problem.

PDFR

PDR1
21st Sep 2016, 09:57
My employer has had that policy for several years now, though one wonders how much is employee safety and how much is the wish to avoid any company liability in the case of an accident......

My employer has a similar policy, but in the explanatory introduction to the policy states "At present there appears to be a risk that courts mey decide that use of a hands free device could constitute negligent or dangerous driving even though it is not illegal. To avoid any liabilities this policy will hold until the legal situation is clarified."

PDR

Chesty Morgan
21st Sep 2016, 10:46
I wonder how many people who regularly drive whilst over the legal alcohol limit have justified their actions using a similar argument.
"I'm always driving home after having far too many beers and so far, no drama"

It will always be "so far, no drama" right up until the time you kill a totally innocent person or two.

Ah, nobody is totally innocent so it doesn't matter.

ShyTorque
21st Sep 2016, 11:26
I wonder how many people who regularly drive whilst over the legal alcohol limit have justified their actions using a similar argument.
"I'm always driving home after having far too many beers and so far, no drama"

It will always be "so far, no drama" right up until the time you kill a totally innocent person or two.
419, here's possibly the worst case of arrogant and stupid people believing their own invulnerability and that the law and scientific evidence simply doesn't apply to them.

15 years for drink-driver who killed six - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1325496/15-years-for-drink-driver-who-killed-six.html)

This accident was very close to me. It could easily have been me or mine that this moron killed.

VP959
21st Sep 2016, 13:00
FWIW, I have answered calls hands-free, and can say with absolute certainty that my driving is impaired when I'm doing it. It's a bit like flying VFR, when you know full well that your look out is not going to be anywhere near as good when you have a high cockpit workload than it is when you're just flying straight and level.

When driving on an open road the impairment is not immediately noticeable, other than the fact that I very often cannot recall driving a particular stretch of road if I've been talking on the hands-free phone. In town it's totally different. In heavy traffic the distraction from talking hands-free is noticeable, so noticeable that there have been many occasions when I've just had to say "hang on a minute" to whoever I'm talking to because I need to concentrate on working out what other road users are likely to do.

I have to say that the same thing happens when talking to someone in the car, but the difference is that most people in the car will, themselves, see when you need to concentrate a bit more and stop talking at those times.

Those who cannot recognise the degradation in their driving skills from distractions remind me a little of a chap I worked with many years ago. He was almost certainly a (well-controlled) alcoholic, and he insisted that after a couple of drinks his driving was better than when he was sober. I've driven with him after he'd had a drink and can state categorically that his driving seemed impaired, but he would never, ever, admit it.

treadigraph
21st Sep 2016, 14:09
If you experience these problems you need to learn to focus better on your driving - I'd suggest that perhaps you might consider staying off the public road until you have addressed the problem.
Or it could be that you ought to stay off the public road until you have a better understanding of just how much relevant detail you miss while yakking on your phone.

I do wonder... "My wife will usually be either lying back with her eyes closed..." Through terror?

ExXB
21st Sep 2016, 14:12
From the report:

While this paper shows the distraction of cell phone conversation, many people understandably wonder how this risk compares to talking with passengers or listening to a radio.

Drivers talking on cell phones make more driving errors than drivers talking with passengers.

Drivers are more likely to drift out of lanes and miss exits than drivers talking with passengers. Why? Adult passengers often actively help drivers by monitoring and discussing traffic. Passengers tend to suppress conversation when driving conditions are demanding. Although some studies found that passengers did not reduce conversation distraction, so research evidence is mixed.

Talking on cell phones has a different social expectation because not responding on a cell phone can be considered rude. In addition, callers cannot see when a driving environment is challenging and cannot suppress conversation in response. Passengers can see the roadway and may moderate the conversation.

Listening to music does not result in lower response time, according to simulator studies. But when the same drivers talk on cell phones, they do have a slower response time. Researchers have concluded that voice communication influenced the allocation of visual attention, while low and moderate volume music did not.

This discussion does not mean that listening to music or talking with passengers is never distracting. Loud music can prevent drivers from hearing emergency sirens, and cognitive processing can lead to a decrement in vehicle control.

Some conversations with passengers can be distracting to drivers. Any task that distracts a driver should be avoided.

Although I believe the first line should begin "Whilst this paper shows ...":ouch:

I know I am distracted by my phone, and I have a bluetooth device in my car. Anyone who says they are not are either lying or are seriously deluded.

Present company excluded, of course.:hmm:

57mm
21st Sep 2016, 15:48
Have seen a few cyclists texting while cycling - crazy.

VP959
21st Sep 2016, 16:17
Have seen a few cyclists texting while cycling - crazy.
Last week I spent an hour walking around the crowded streets of our local city. I started off making an effort not to walk into the people who were so transfixed by looking at their phones that they couldn't see where they were walking. After about 10 minutes I got fed up with having to step out of their way all the time, often having to step off the pavement into the road to prevent a collision, and started to just stick to my course and if I barged into them then that was just tough.

In the main I just had apologies, no one got offensive. It seemed to me that these idiots knew full well they were likely to bump into people or things, and had just developed an instant "I'm sorry" response.

Octopussy2
21st Sep 2016, 16:31
Just coming back on the "they're avoiding liability" point, for once I'm not cynical about their motives (obviously it might be a nice bonus in some instances). This is part of a concerted drive to reduce employee fatalities to zero in a company where people work in vastly different environments, some of which are inherently dangerous unless proper safety procedures are observed, and some of which inherently less so (like me sitting in my office). Zero hasn't happened yet in any given year.

G-CPTN
21st Sep 2016, 16:40
Last week I spent an hour walking around the crowded streets of our local city. I started off making an effort not to walk into the people who were so transfixed by looking at their phones that they couldn't see where they were walking. After about 10 minutes I got fed up with having to step out of their way all the time, often having to step off the pavement into the road to prevent a collision, and started to just stick to my course and if I barged into them then that was just tough.
You should carry one of those aerosol-can air-horns and blow it as the texter approaches.

VP959
21st Sep 2016, 17:07
You should carry one of those aerosol-can air-horns and blow it as the texter approaches.
Very tempting!

India Four Two
21st Sep 2016, 18:15
Earlier this year in Saigon, I stopped to take a photo of an Art Deco building festooned with Bougainvillea and with festoons of a different kind in the foreground. I took several shots with traffic in the foreground and on the last one, I got an unexpected bonus.

A young lady riding through the uncontrolled intersection, without looking and texting at the same time!

TangoAlphad
21st Sep 2016, 19:36
I'm struggling to recall the name of the company (I wish I could as credit where credit is due etc) but I remember answering the phone on the handsfree and the first question when the back ground noise was heard was 'are you driving sir?' To which I replied I am but it is a handsfree and was met with the reply 'I'm sorry sir but our policy has no exceptions, you can return the call or we shall call you again at xx:xx' and ended the call.

I had zero issues with this and thought it was a great idea. It shouldn't be just the drivers who need to change their mentality but the people talking to people on a phone while driving. If I can hear some one is on the phone I just say I'll call you back later and hang up.

Chesty Morgan
21st Sep 2016, 19:38
It's fairly straight forward. When I'm making a hands free 'phone call in the car it's the conversation that suffers not my driving.

Local Variation
21st Sep 2016, 20:22
Yeah right PDR1, jog on sunshine.

Come back when when you have completed advanced driving courses and 30,000 plus miles per annum for the last 20 years.

Pontius Navigator
21st Sep 2016, 20:35
Let's face it, most of us don't multi task; we single task with rapid time share. Walking and chewing gum might be an exception.

I am watching TV as I type this. I am actually glancing at TV after every word and cocking an ear for something interesting. It is a similar process as an instrument scan or driving checking 3 rear mirrors, looking ahead and checking satnav.

Local Variation
21st Sep 2016, 21:24
I think this study is a key one that has caused certain companies to sit up and take notice. It is from the University of Sussex and is dated this year.

Driving while talking on a hands-free phone can be as distracting as talking on a hand-held mobile, psychologists at the University of Sussex say.

The study, published in the Transportation Research journal, found that drivers having conversations which sparked their visual imagination detected fewer road hazards than those who didn’t. They also focused on a smaller area of the road ahead of them and failed to see hazards, even when they looked directly at them. This shows the risks of even hands-free phone conversations.

The researchers found that conversations may use more of the brain’s visual processing resources than previously understood. Having a conversation which requires the driver to use their visual imagination creates competition for the brain’s processing capacity, which results in drivers missing road hazards that they might otherwise have spotted.

A popular misconception is that using a mobile phone while driving is safe as long as the driver uses a hands-free phone. Our research shows this is not the case. Hands-free can be equally distracting because conversations cause the driver to visually imagine what they’re talking about. This visual imagery competes for processing resources with what the driver sees in front of them on the road.

Our findings have implications for real-life mobile phone conversations. The person at the other end of the phone might ask “where did you leave the blue file?”, causing the driver to mentally search a remembered room. The driver may also simply imagine the facial expression of the person they’re talking to.

Clearly this research isn’t a green light to use hand-held mobile phones while driving, however. The use of hand-held phones was made illegal primarily because they interfere with vehicle control; but our study adds to a mounting body of research showing that both hand-held and hands-free phones are dangerously distracting for drivers. The only ‘safe’ phone in a car is one that's switched off.

The study, which tracked eye movements, also found that drivers who were distracted suffered from “visual tunnelling.” They tended to focus their eyes on a small central region directly ahead of them. This led them to miss hazards in their peripheral vision. Undistracted participants’ eye movements ranged over a much wider area.

However, chatty passengers tend to pose less of a risk than mobile phone conversations. They will usually moderate the conversation when road hazards arise. Someone on the other end of a phone is oblivious to the other demands on the driver and so keeps talking. And talking in person involves non-verbal cues which ease the flow of conversation. Phone conversations are more taxing because they lack these cues.

PDR1
21st Sep 2016, 22:27
Yeah right PDR1, jog on sunshine.

Come back when when you have completed advanced driving courses and 30,000 plus miles per annum for the last 20 years.
That's rather funny. Your assumption that I haven't done these things, your inability to refute and your quickness to insult.

Perhaps the mods should be giving you some time away from the topic.

PDR

treadigraph
22nd Sep 2016, 00:06
Let's face it, most of us don't multi task; we single task with rapid time share.

Oh, I can multi-task. I can take a dump AND complete (at least in part) the GK crossword in Saturday's Daily Telegraph (but not while driving). Natural caution compels me to ensure I'm properly seated before commencing either activity though...

Seldomfitforpurpose
22nd Sep 2016, 00:30
Anyone who thinks they can conduct a conversation with a passenger or use a hands free kit and have a conversation with a caller and that does not affect their concentration and impair their driving is an absolute [email protected]@king twonk.

There are a myriad of legal distractions in car, changing the radio channel, lighting a cigarette, adjusting air con, windows etc but every time I have ever done those things I know that my concentration has wandered.

Bull at a Gate
22nd Sep 2016, 01:49
SFFP - I agree!

And if by some miracle there is a driver out there whose driving skills do not suffer when having a conversation on a hands free 'phone, then he or she has to understand that we do not make the laws which govern driving based on individual abilities.

Some of us are better drivers than others. Some of us could drive as safely at high speed as some of us drive at low speed. But we don't have our own individual speed limits which apply only to us.

treadigraph
22nd Sep 2016, 08:10
Perhaps the mods should be giving you some time away from the topic.Which reads as: "Miss, miss! Make Local Variation stop, his argument is morally and technically superior to mine in every way..."

I'm mystified as to why you think him rude.

Bull at a Gate: exactly, the police cannot make a distinction, though they doubtless may exercise discretion in certain circumstances.

Pontius Navigator
22nd Sep 2016, 08:35
While there may be studies or post crash investigation concerning hands free, with hand held the evidence is readily visible to anyone that looks.

One of the worst, the school mum in SUV on the phone negotiating a tight corner no doubt contacting her personal trainer once hubby is at work.

ATNotts
22nd Sep 2016, 08:37
Anyone who thinks they can conduct a conversation with a passenger or use a hands free kit and have a conversation with a caller and that does not affect their concentration and impair their driving is an absolute [email protected]@king twonk.

There are a myriad of legal distractions in car, changing the radio channel, lighting a cigarette, adjusting air con, windows etc but every time I have ever done those things I know that my concentration has wandered.
That is a very good point; and throughout motoring history governments have been behind the technology curve when it comes to managing the road safety implications of each of them.

Moving slightly off topic, my wife pointed out that at some motorway service areas there are now drive-through coffee shops, where you can pick up up mug of boiling hot liquid and drive off down the road drinking it, and potentially spilling it over sensitive parts, which apart from being illegal (drinking and eating at the wheel can be construed as driving without due care and attention) could cause fatal accidents.

In addition of course, the point of service areas is to give drivers a break from being behind the wheel, which they won't get by going through the drive-through.

Never mind, the authorities can continue play with the one club they have in their bag, and use ad-nauseum - speed cameras!

The Nr Fairy
22nd Sep 2016, 09:11
you have an ATPL and have been trained to fly aircraft and talk to ATC at the same time, which I suggest gives you a far greater capability to safely drive and use a hands free than the average moron using a mobile while driving on the road.

I can't even begin to comprehend where you think the two are even remotely comparable.

At the very least, most ATPLs I've been driven with aren't trained properly to drive, for a start.

(Edited to say I'm a late comer to the thread, I saw that PDR1 and Geordie beat me to it).

419
22nd Sep 2016, 10:56
Atomkraft, you have an ATPL and have been trained to fly aircraft and talk to ATC at the same time, which I suggest gives you a far greater capability to safely drive and use a hands free than the average moron using a mobile while driving on the road.

When was the last time that a child on a bicycle or a distracted pedestrian wandered in front of an aircraft when it was airborne and the pilot was taking to ATC on the radio?

G-CPTN
22nd Sep 2016, 11:42
http://www.jokebandit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/kid-stuck-outside-airplane-window-blooper.jpg

cattletruck
22nd Sep 2016, 13:17
Why can't the latest smart cars just send text messages on your behalf and leave you to do your thing?

A simple random auto reply could do:
"Running late."
"Get back to you soon."
"No."
"Yes."
"Maybe."
"Definitely."
"I think so."
"If you say so."
"Yeah, sounds great."
"I hear you."
"I'm coming now."
"Whatever."

Do I have to tell these designers how to do their job?

treadigraph
22nd Sep 2016, 13:34
NR and 419, first off I'm not an ATPL or even a PPL so I certainly wasn't trying to claim any superiority over mere earth-bound mortals. :p

The point I clearly failed to make is that an ATPL (as an example and as a response to somebody who is and likes to yak while driving) who has learned to fly, got an IFR rating, flown whatever number of hours, passed whatever ground school and flying tests are necessary to become an ATPL, got type ratings and so on, should then able to fly and navigate complex aircraft in busy airspace, poor vis and at night, monitor aircraft systems and ATC and respond to calls as necessary, and presumably will have a reasonable awareness as to what's going on around them.

OK I know that usually there are two crew and it's mostly all automation that does everything bar feed the cat these days, but surely people trained to that level are going to carry some of that training and ability into their car and have better situational awareness than the average motorist even if they are talking on a hands free phone? If not, I stand corrected.

At the very least, most ATPLs I've been driven with aren't trained properly to drive, for a start.
Nor are any of us; I was taught to pass the driving test - achieving that, as they say, gives one a licence to learn! I tend to the view that quite a few don't.

For the record - I fully support the move to strengthen fines for using hand helds and agree with all those who indicate that hands free is just as distracting. Apparently for all you ATPLs as well.

Finally, on Tuesday night a moron in a van overtook a stationery tram at Lebanon Road Croydon, crossing double solid white lines to do so, and nearly collided head with me on my push bike. I barely managed to blurt out a couple of choice expletives as his window flitted past my lug 'ole and I certainly didn't have time to see whether he was on a phone, either hand held or hands free, but I'd not be surprised if he was. From the sound of it, probably a pilot... :E

ShyTorque
22nd Sep 2016, 15:53
From the sound of it, probably a pilot... http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

No, mate. Any decent pilot would have got you..

AtomKraft
22nd Sep 2016, 19:42
You guys need to get out more often.

I'm a Brit, but working in India.

Most accidents here, and in the UK are just that. Accidents.

Does making a mistake while not using your phone make you a better person than making the same boo-boo while yakking?

If the cause of the accident is 'not being very good at driving- at that very moment', which is the normal, and quite excusable cause, how is it so different from 'not being very good at driving-at that very moment- but was phoning'.

Both are silly mistakes, only.

The guy using his phone is not auto-elevated to drink driver, or maniac status.

notapilot15
22nd Sep 2016, 19:58
There are people who cannot pair their phone with car and still hold phone with one hand while driving.

andytug
22nd Sep 2016, 20:01
Why can't the latest smart cars just send text messages on your behalf and leave you to do your thing?

A simple random auto reply could do:
"Running late."
"Get back to you soon."
"No."
"Yes."
"Maybe."
"Definitely."
"I think so."
"If you say so."
"Yeah, sounds great."
"I hear you."
"I'm coming now."
"Whatever."

Do I have to tell these designers how to do their job?

Drivemode app for Android can do this, suspect others can also.

ExSp33db1rd
23rd Sep 2016, 07:46
There are people who cannot pair their phone with car ...............

You mean by using Toothache ?

I held an ATPL, and with it an Instrument Rating and was authorised to land in CAT 3 ILS conditions OK, there was some computer/autopilot assistance there, but basically I was in charge of the computer stuff, not the other way around ( and it was a bloody sight harder programming all that stuff than just flying the aeroplane, I can tell you ) and so I can say with some authority - apparently? - that most of the drivers I follow couldn't chew gum and march at the same time. Why does one have to dab the brake when approaching every corner when driving UPHILL ? And that's not even when holding a cellphone.

A coffee shop here has instituted a cellphone free protocol - in exchange for a free coffee. One is issued with a "Detox" box into which one is encouraged to drop one's phone when entering, to qualify for the free coffee.

Hope yet. Maybe ?

The Nip
23rd Sep 2016, 08:24
Atomkraft,

As I passed my driving test in Germany some 30+ years ago, I am always perplexed by the word accident.

Surely there is always someone to blame? Whether through poor driving, failing to maintain their vehicle in a roadworthy manner.

The other day in a paper was an example whereby a motorist had collided with a bridge. Cause, driving too fast for the situation. Damage to the bridge is considerably.

Who pays?

ShyTorque
23rd Sep 2016, 08:33
The UK police have recently stopped using the term RTA (road traffic accident) and have replaced it with RTC (road traffic collision).

I had to obtain a German driving permit over thirty five years ago and recall that in legal terms there was no such thing as a road accident. If two cars collide, someone caused it.

I too often wonder who taught some of the drivers in UK. Some drive along at totally inappropriate speeds (sometimes too slow as well as others going far too fast, bearing in mind the speed limit and conditions). Bimbling along, 35 to 38 mph in a 60 limit, brake lights coming on every ten seconds or so, reaching a 30 mph zone then suddenly speeding up to 40 or 45 mph. Are these folk (I hesitate to call them drivers) in a little world of their own, oblivious to what's going on around them?

As for roundabouts, lane discipline and use of indicators seem to be unheard of for some.....

PDR1
23rd Sep 2016, 08:37
You mean by using Toothache ?
A coffee shop here has instituted a cellphone free protocol - in exchange for a free coffee. One is issued with a "Detox" box into which one is encouraged to drop one's phone when entering, to qualify for the free coffee.

Hope yet. Maybe ?

Why? Why does it bother you if someone sitting at one table is having a conversation on a phone while someone else at another table is having a conversation with a person? There is no difference except that in the second case the conversants were able to arrange to be in the same room.

I put it to you that the one with the problem is the one being judgemental, not the ones being judged.

PDR

AtomKraft
23rd Sep 2016, 08:40
Nip
Who knows?
It's an imperfect world in which we live, so buy insurance- as a chum advised me.

Most accidents are just honest mistakes.Carelessness is common, distractions innumerable and unexpected things continue to occur unexpectedly.....

One of the myriad possible distractions could be caused by yakking, hands free or otherwise, but IMHO its no more of a distraction than a bit of rain falling, the kids squawking in the back, talking to the wife, navigating, listening to the radio etc...

At the rate this thread is going, someone will be calling for the death penalty for mobile phone users soon.

I use my phone on the move, and I just take extra care when doing so. I think that's sensible.

There exist laws to prosecute people who do endanger others on the road. There's no need for a special law for those who use their mobi when driving.

A decent driver, taking care- maybe slowing a little, ought to be able to use his phone safely while driving.

Others clearly might be less safe.

Punish the ones who are seen to act dangerously!

For example, The driver of an auto is in a slightly less perilous position than the driver of a manual with regards to phone use as he doesn't need to change gear.
A driver yakking while stuck in a stationary queue of traffic is less dangerous than another whose yakking while hurtling down a country road at 60 mph...

These factors should be taken into consideration

hiflymk3
23rd Sep 2016, 08:49
AtomKraft, please let me know when you are driving in my area, I'll take avoiding action.

AtomKraft
23rd Sep 2016, 08:53
Sure.
Meet me half way and tell me where you live?;)

Seldomfitforpurpose
23rd Sep 2016, 08:55
I use my phone on the move, and I just take extra care when doing so. I think that's sensible.


Breath taking arrogance, if you are so capable of driving and dialling why the need for 'extra care', surely if its perfectly safe to do so you would not need that 'extra care'?

The very fact you admit to needing 'extra care' shows you grasp the concept that using a phone while driving is a distraction which means you acknowledge that your driving ability has been diminished by that extra task yet you continue to do so.

That puts you in the same category of those who think it's ok to drive with a few pints in them so long as they are careful!

ExSp33db1rd
23rd Sep 2016, 09:08
I put it to you that the one with the problem is the one being judgemental, not the ones being judged.

PDR

Absolutely ! Opinionated, too ! I also judge the woman pushing a toddler in a pushchair whilst the toddler is glued to a smartphone, too. Comment here recently that youngsters are starting school unable to talk properly !

Recently, in the USA, almost all enquiries ended with my being asked for my cellphone number for their answer. What Amendment to the U.S. Constitution demanded that citizens are obliged to have a cellphone ?

Today we had an issue with our Internet/e-mail server connection, via a Broadband connection on a landline that we have owned for 20 years. I rang the Telcom. company, they were busy so "the computer" offered to call me back within 72 minutes, which a human did. Eventually the rep. agreed to find an answer, and what was my cellphone number ? She had called me on a landline, so could have rung me again on the same landline, or, as we were talking about my e-mail problem could have sent me an e-mail, but no, an answer would only be sent to me by text, on a cellphone, that was "the system ".

I'm not interested in debate, end of story thank you. Goodbye.

TURIN
23rd Sep 2016, 09:43
One of the myriad possible distractions could be caused by yakking, hands free or otherwise, but IMHO its no more of a distraction than a bit of rain falling, the kids squawking in the back, talking to the wife, navigating, listening to the radio etc...

The research and evidence from it is against you there chief.

BBC Report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36475180)

NSC Distracted Driver Research (http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/distracted-driving-research-studies.aspx)

Please think again before you kill someone or yourself.

AtomKraft
23rd Sep 2016, 10:09
Hi TURIN
Your first link is saying that hands free phones are about as distracting as normal, hand held ones. I quite agree.

Your second goes on about how some think texting is not a distraction while driving. Like most, I don't text and drive and it certainly IS a distraction.

Anyway, I guess we all just have to look after ourselves as best we can. I shall continue to do so, and you can all relax as I'm not in the UK at the moment- bringing you all within an ace of death with my reckless phone usage!

PDR1
23rd Sep 2016, 10:17
I'm not interested in debate, end of story thank you. Goodbye.

Well exactly. As I said - the problem is in the ones being judgemental rather than the ones being judged.

I actually think all of this hatred of mobile phones is actually just envy. Not envy over the toys themselves, but envy of those who actually have people who want/need to talk to them...

PDR

treadigraph
23rd Sep 2016, 10:47
envy of those who actually have people who want/need to talk to them
Or perhaps those who are surgically attached to their phones are very insecure and require constant reassurance that they are loved and needed.


Atomkraft, if you are driving and texting in India you need your head looked! There was a film on the Beeb news recently about traffic accidents, er, collisions in India recently, truly scary! Stay safe mate.

AtomKraft
23rd Sep 2016, 11:18
Rest assured treadi.

I'm a brave character, but not brave enough to drive here.

The roads here are mental. Also manners are absent, so no Brit could make progress here. It's every man for himself!

The Nip
23rd Sep 2016, 11:20
Shytorque,

And that is my point. Responsibility is now mostly non existent. Every time one of us is on the road, no matter what type of transport, we should be held responsible for OUR actions. Right or wrong, I am not a fan of this 'accident' culture as it breeds 'so what' society.

Many on here mentioned about the sentences (lack off) given to the disruption caused at London City airport. Petty fines are no deterrent. No different in motoring offences. I can't be bothered to dig out the stats but there are hundreds of motorists with points on their licences over 20 yet no ban.

That is why I wish the Highway Code was a law where rules are black and white. I am sure many disagree but like all things when it doesn't affect you so what it is someone else's problem.

As an aside I find using my mobile on my motorbike very difficult.🏍

PDR1
23rd Sep 2016, 11:50
Or perhaps those who are surgically attached to their phones are very insecure and require constant reassurance that they are loved and needed.


It really is amusing that sitting down and making a single phone call is deemed "being surgically attacked to a phone".

This is my point - the vitriolic hatred spewing from the anti-telephonic taliban is not the consequence of rational thought. It's an emotional reaction with no basis in reality. Do you have the same hatred for anyone who uses a public payphone?

PDR

dsc810
23rd Sep 2016, 12:51
I see them round me in the country
Females on horses with their phone permanently in their ear seemingly paying no attention to the horse or anything else.
no these are not "short conversations" - they are more akin to having the wretched phone surgically implanted in their ears.

It all seems very bizarre to me
There they are having got out and enjoying some leisure time on a horse in the country and then just spending it talking on the mobile.

PDR1
23rd Sep 2016, 12:59
I see them round me in the country
Females on horses with their phone permanently in their ear seemingly paying no attention to the horse or anything else.
no these are not "short conversations" - they are more akin to having the wretched phone surgically implanted in their ears.

It all seems very bizarre to me
There they are having got out and enjoying some leisure time on a horse in the country and then just spending it talking on the mobile.

But are you sure that's what they're doing? If you saw me in the woods walking the dogs you'd see me either holding my phone or wit my phone on earphones. I'm not making a call - I'm listening to tracks*. I know people who do the same while exercising their horses.

PDR

* Not music, as it happens (or at least very rarely). Mostly it's audio books, recorded radio plays or recorded comedy shows from R4. I have over 2Gb of ISIHAC episodes on my phone...

Seldomfitforpurpose
23rd Sep 2016, 13:09
This is my point - the vitriolic hatred spewing from the anti-telephonic taliban is not the consequence of rational thought.

Really?

Driver on mobile phone killed Jacy Good's parents and left her fighting for her life - now she wants change - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/victim-mobile-phone-driver-who-8844913)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/12/lorry-driver-jailed-for-killing-mother-of-two-police-officer-mom/

Van driver with eight convictions for using his phone at the wheel killed a cyclist after reading a text (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/05/van-driver-with-eight-convictions-for-using-his-phone-at-the-whe/)

I own an iPhone 6 and am looking to upgrade to the 7 which hardly makes a member of the anti telephonic taliban but someone would need the brains of a duck to think that being on the phone while driving is not an unnecessary distraction :rolleyes:

PDR1
23rd Sep 2016, 13:14
Really?

Driver on mobile phone killed Jacy Good's parents and left her fighting for her life - now she wants change - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/victim-mobile-phone-driver-who-8844913)

Lorry driver jailed for killing police officer moments after checking mobile phone (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/12/lorry-driver-jailed-for-killing-mother-of-two-police-officer-mom/)

Van driver with eight convictions for using his phone at the wheel killed a cyclist after reading a text (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/05/van-driver-with-eight-convictions-for-using-his-phone-at-the-whe/)

I own an iPhone 6 and am looking to upgrade to the 7 which hardly makes a member of the anti telephonic taliban but someone would need the brains of a duck to think that being on the phone while driving is not an unnecessary distraction :rolleyes:

None of which is relevant because my remarks were in response to someone objecting that people used phones in cafes. Please read what was said...

PDR

Seldomfitforpurpose
23rd Sep 2016, 18:55
My bad, apologies.

PDR1
23rd Sep 2016, 19:08
No worries - easy mistake to make.

PDR

ExSp33db1rd
24th Sep 2016, 11:22
PDR1 ... I was going to ignore you, but you just don't get the point, do you ?

........these are not "short conversations" - they are more akin to having the wretched phone surgically implanted in their ears.

Face to face conversations in cafes are usually conducted at a reasonable volume that doesn't impinge on ones' own pleasurable experience at a nearby table, and only add to the ambience of pleasant meeting places with friends or acquaintances - I have no need of envy - but conversations on cellphones are usually conducted at a volume that includes everyone in sight. It is to foster this attitude that a local cafe has introduced "Detox" boxes, into which one is encouraged to drop ones' phone, and should one choose to go along with the protocol then they are rewarded with a free coffee.

If I want to make a call, a cafe, or any public place, is the last venue that I would seek to conduct my communication. If I forget to put my phone on silent mode when I'm in a public place, and it rings, I either immediately switch it off to silence it if I have no good reason to expect a call, or excuse myself and go outside if I have previously asked to be disturbed by telephone.

I just can't understand the mentality of those who arrange to meet in a bar, restaurant, cafe, whatever, then all immediately bury their heads in their collective cellphones, what is more important than the people they have arranged to share a meal with ? These are probably the same people who can't switch off their phone when driving their car. Most phones can now accept a text message, or record the number ignored - just what is so important that it can't wait ? The occasions when a family member is murdered or killed in a road accident are too unlikely to seriously consider, tho' admittedly possible, one has to occasionally take a chance in Life.

During my career I was frequently obliged to be on immediate call, standing by with the car refuelled for the trip to the airport and my suitcase packed, if the phone rang I had to answer it and maybe drop everything and leave home for an indefinite period, sometimes even up to 2 weeks. I and my wife and family accepted that when so rostered for that duty. One of my colleagues installed 2 telephone lines, he gave one number to the airline for his standby days, and only the airline, and used the other number for everything else. On standby days he would immediately answer the phone that he knew was only calling him to immediate duty, but at all other times he chose to answer it, or his regular phone, if he so desired. This was even in the days before answephones became popular, he argued that if the call was important they would call back, and if not important then why should he stop what he was doing to be at the beck and call of the telephone ?

I can see no reason to change my attitude, I've survived 82 years so far, indeed, my parents didn't even install a basic landline in the family home until I left home around the age of 21. If I wanted to meet my -many, no envy there - friends I would walk around to their house and knock on the door, and ask if Jimmy wanted to come out to play. We survived, and I concluded a very successful career into a busy retirement. Yes, I have a phone, but I am its Master, not the other way around.

TURIN
24th Sep 2016, 20:33
Attract you need to read that report again. It stated that texting was a major distraction when driving. Even the drivers admit it.