[Adcook]

One the UKs biggest transport companies, First Group Buses, has banned its 135,000 employees from using handsfree headsets following a recommendation from the Transport Research Laboratory relating to driver distraction from mobile phone conversation being just as dangerous as drink driving. Chances are if TRL are recommending it, the government will look at making it law. Look out for interviews from TRL on the major national news channels today.

[mjcairney]

I personally think that's the way it's heading. There's even talk of the increasing the penalty for using a mobile (not handsfree) whilst driving up to two (2) years imprisonment.

Season's Greetings,

Martin.

[ste v p]

Originally Posted by mjcairney

I personally think that's the way it's heading. There's even talk of the increasing the penalty for using a mobile (not handsfree) whilst driving up to two (2) years imprisonment.

Season's Greetings,

Martin.

Next They'll ban conversation between passengers. And rowdy kids on the back seat should be gagged before the journey in case they cause a distraction. It fact, we should only be driven by trained professionals because we're such a danger to ourselves!

[Adcook]

Yeah I agree, Im a firm believer that if you require 100% concentration to drive you shouldn't be driving as no one can maintain 100% concentration for such long periods.

[Spiderkid]

Originally Posted by ste1000

Next They'll ban conversation between passengers. And rowdy kids on the back seat should be gagged before the journey in case they cause a distraction. It fact, we should only be driven by trained professionals because we're such a danger to ourselves!

Yes and no. There's lots of evidence to show that talking on the phone to someone via handsfree is as mentally distracting as using a mobile (although not as physically restrictive than if you're holding a phone). The argument being that unlike having a conversation with someone who's actually in the car, the person on the other end of the phone can't see what's happening outside the car, and therefore demands your full attention. If you're having a conversation with someone in a car, they can see everything you can see, and can respond and pause when you require extra attention to navigate a difficult or dangerous situation on the road. Someone on the other end of the phone won't and can't do that, so your attention can be split at important times, potentially reducing your allertness and making you less safe.

I'm only pointing that out because it sounded rediculous to me that they'd ban handsfree sets, until I found out the reasoning behind it.

But as you say, there are many distractions that we have to deal with when driving, this being just one of them. There's no doubt that having screaming kids in the back of the car decreases the drivers attentiveness to the road and is on one level dangerous, but no one would ban it because it's seen as 'acceptable risk'. The question is whether or not it's acceptable risk to be talking to someone on the phone when driving.

Even if they did ban it though I think it'd be very hard to enforce, especially with technology allowing almost invisible headsets and many phones working through the car stereo system. Imagine how many people are going to get pulled over for singing to themselves or swearing at other drivers!

[insomniak123]

I heard earlier that any kind of conversing (on a phone) combined with dangerous driving (thats the important bit) will result in 2 years inside.

Prisons are full, rapists get suspended sentences, breaking and entering and assaults on pensioners get community service if you're really unlucky (25 hours support classes if you're not) but driving and talking at the same time is apparently way too dangerous for you to even walk the streets and they'll cram you in somewhere, you fiend!

[ste v p]

[QUOTE=Spiderkid;6052802]Yes and no. There's lots of evidence to show that talking on the phone to someone via handsfree is as mentally distracting as using a mobile (although not as physically restrictive than if you're holding a phone). The argument being that unlike having a conversation with someone who's actually in the car, the person on the other end of the phone can't see what's happening outside the car, and therefore demands your full attention. If you're having a conversation with someone in a car, they can see everything you can see, and can respond and pause when you require extra attention to navigate a difficult or dangerous situation on the road.

[QUOTE]

Any links for this report? I'd love to know who paid for the research. I have to say that it assumes rather a lot of the passenger that they are able to read the road and respond accordingly.

[mjcairney]

Originally Posted by insomniak123

Prisons are full, rapists get suspended sentences, breaking and entering and assaults on pensioners get community service if you're really unlucky (25 hours support classes if you're not) but driving and talking at the same time is apparently way too dangerous for you to even walk the streets and they'll cram you in somewhere, you fiend!

There is no doubt the motorist is the easy prey - commit any crime other than in a motor and chances are you'll get away with it, commit one in a car and chances are you'll be done.

Season's Greetings,

Martin.

[spl23]

There is no way they can practically ban use of a proper hands-free kit, as it is rather difficult for Plod to tell that you are using one. So they can see your mouth moving as you drive - so what? You could be singing along to the radio, or muttering to yourself, or talking to a child in the back seat.

If you are involved in an accident, they might go to the trouble of checking your mobile phone records to see if you were on a call at the time, but they can't just ban the use of hands-free kits. Leaving aside anything else, I think there would be a place for compensation claims against the government by people who had HF kits fitted at personal expense when the government announced (as it did) that they were a good idea. The Bluetooth kit on my BMW was a £500 option - if the government tell me I now can't use it, they can bloody well give me the money back!

[happyhomer]

Well, apologies to the previous posters but as far as I'm concerned the latest announcement is a good thing and does not nearly go far enough. In the first instance I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing idiots continuing to use handheld mobiles whilst driving-never mind whether or not you agree with the ban in principle, it's plain common-sense that this is a bad thing to be doing. Anything that persuades them to stop is a good thing IMO. And yes, I think that if somebody persists in doing this then jailing them may not be a bad idea-there are enough people at risk of being injured/killed by the actions of some arrogant pillock screaming down the motorway whilst having a conversation on his mobile to make jailing them for the sake of public safety a viable argument.
Secondly, I do not believe that handsfree kits are much safer. I used one around 5 or 6 years ago (a "proper" one, so no headset to fiddle with), and whilst it stopped the physical distraction of holding a phone and driving at the same time, I found that I was far more distracted than by any conversation in the car or by my 2 children kicking up a fuss in the back. I did find that the person on the end of the line would soon forget that I was in a car, and this did affect my ability to concentrate sufficiently on the road (this was long before I heard any research findings into the matter). I ditched the handsfree kit, and now when I'm driving my phone lives in the boot-there is nothing that can't wait.
OK, rant over, but this is one thing that really makes my blood boil.

[insomniak123]

happyhomer, I agree there is nothing that angers me more on the road than when I see someone with one hand holding a mobile.

I cannot see how jailing people that safely use handsfree headsets / kits is going to stop the smallminded selfish group of people that think they are allowed to use their phone (handheld) whilst attempting to drive. It's already illegal to do so and such users should face a fine.

You might chuck your phone in the boot, my phone doubles up as the Sat-Nav and provides the audio system in my car, will I be punished just because the same device is on show, and could be used with a handsfree kit

[andykn]

Originally Posted by ste1000

Any links for this report? I'd love to know who paid for the research. I have to say that it assumes rather a lot of the passenger that they are able to read the road and respond accordingly.

I'm afraid I don't have a link but I'm pretty sure that this was a piece of research done by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL), a government organistaion.

It's a couple of years old and was widely misreported at the time by our hapless news workers. I think that the conclusion of this research was that talking on a mobile while driving (even hands free) impaired your reactions as much as Drink Driving.

What still makes Drink Driving far more dangerous is that your co-ordination and judgement are impaired as well.

[Adcook]

Yeah it was done by TRL and they have just published new "guidelines" on the subject. Did I mention I am a Senior Researcher for TRL.

[ma1234]

The idiots using handheld phones whilst driving should rightfully be fined and persistent users should if necessary be jailed, I don't feel the same should be applied to users of headsets and/or handsfree car kits, I use mine also for satnav and it is fitted in a 'proper' bluetooth car kit. I don't find it any more distracting then listening to the radio or a passenger.
What does wind me up whilst driving is the siting of drivers satnav systems (I am referring to the Tomtom type) that are postioned in such a way on the middle of the screen etc. as to hamper vision, the same also applies to those idiots which haven't got the intelligence to put the screen to night mode rather than have them shining like the occupants had their Ready Brek that morning. Technology moves on far quicker than legislation, the guidlines of all in car 'gadgets' needs looking into, even car radios have become harder to use because of aesthetics.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by ste1000

It fact, we should only be driven by trained professionals because we're such a danger to ourselves!

Originally Posted by mjcairney

There is no doubt the motorist is the easy prey - commit any crime other than in a motor and chances are you'll get away with it, commit one is a car and chances are you'll be done.

Yeah, what do 3,000 odd dead people a year matter anyway. It's less than 10 a day.

[insomniak123]

Originally Posted by ma1234

The idiots using handheld phones whilst driving should rightfully be fined and persistent users should if necessary be jailed, I don't feel the same should be applied to users of headsets and/or handsfree car kits, I use mine also for satnav and it is fitted in a 'proper' bluetooth car kit. I don't find it any more distracting then listening to the radio or a passenger.
What does wind me up whilst driving is the siting of drivers satnav systems (I am referring to the Tomtom type) that are postioned in such a way on the middle of the screen etc. as to hamper vision, the same also applies to those idiots which haven't got the intelligence to put the screen to night mode rather than have them shining like the occupants had their Ready Brek that morning. Technology moves on far quicker than legislation, the guidlines of all in car 'gadgets' needs looking into, even car radios have become harder to use because of aesthetics.

twiddling a knob to fine tune a radio station and rummaging through tapes is less distracting that a ready tuned radio with either CD changer or MP3 capabilites? hmm... rethink that point

the rest of your post is good though

andykn, your response is a little harsh, motorists are jailed for the possbility that they might cause death due to their inability to drive properly (a thought crime), then have to prove they can drive again (re-test) - whereas proven, been-thru-the-courts rapists are quite likely to either get a suspended sentence and will quite happily be able to commit again when their short sentence is cut even shorter and they are out again

It's about balance, and quite frankly this country would be better off pulling sentences out of a hat than continue with the current system

[ma1234]

Originally Posted by insomniak123

twiddling a knob to fine tune a radio station and rummaging through tapes is less distracting that a ready tuned radio with either CD changer or MP3 capabilites? hmm... rethink that point

Only to a point, my car hasn't got MP3 or a CD multichanger despite being less than a year old, the buttons are spread over the centre console to be pleasant to the eye and certainly not for easy use, e.g. Bass and Treble controls are hidden in the menus. Yes it has got steering wheel control but changing CD is still no different than fumbling for a tape.

[Spiderkid]

Originally Posted by mjcairney

There is no doubt the motorist is the easy prey - commit any crime other than in a motor and chances are you'll get away with it, commit one is a car and chances are you'll be done.

Season's Greetings,

Martin.

Try telling that to someone who's loved one was killed by a dangerous or drunk driver and who got off with a ban and a fine (http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sco...8057-20255777/). The truth is that if you kill someone through wreckless behavious, but you're behind the wheel of a car, you'll get a far lighter sentence than if you kill them in some other way ('accidentally'). And there are plenty of cases of people escaping bans who've been driving well over the speed limit or caught drunk driving, as long as their 'excuse' is good enough.

I just don't buy this 'driver victim' mentality. As long as you drive within the law you shouldn't have any problems. I don't hear people complaining at the number of security cameras there are in shops for instance, because most of us think that shoplifting is 'morally wrong' and so aren't bother by the pressence of measures to prevent, detect and aprehend anyone trying to shoplift. When it comes breaking the law in a car however, be it speeding, not paying due attention or 'having one for the road' a lot of people assume we have some sort of moral absolution and therefore protest at the number of measures in place to prevent, detect and aprehend people breaking the law in this way.

The reason that there are more measures in place to prevent people breaking the law in cars is because there are so many cars on the road and it's relatively easy to break the law when you get into car. Which is fair enough given that it's also far easier to accidentally kill someone when you're driving a car. And whether we like it or not, one result of the strict enforcement of the law when it comes to driving is that the UK has one of the best road safety records in Europe.

[happyhomer]

Originally Posted by Spiderkid

Try telling that to someone who's loved one was killed by a dangerous or drunk driver and who got off with a ban and a fine (http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sco...8057-20255777/). The truth is that if you kill someone through wreckless behavious, but you're behind the wheel of a car, you'll get a far lighter sentence than if you kill them in some other way ('accidentally'). And there are plenty of cases of people escaping bans who've been driving well over the speed limit or caught drunk driving, as long as their 'excuse' is good enough.

I just don't buy this 'driver victim' mentality. As long as you drive within the law you shouldn't have any problems. I don't hear people complaining at the number of security cameras there are in shops for instance, because most of us think that shoplifting is 'morally wrong' and so aren't bother by the pressence of measures to prevent, detect and aprehend anyone trying to shoplift. When it comes breaking the law in a car however, be it speeding, not paying due attention or 'having one for the road' a lot of people assume we have some sort of moral absolution and therefore protest at the number of measures in place to prevent, detect and aprehend people breaking the law in this way.

The reason that there are more measures in place to prevent people breaking the law in cars is because there are so many cars on the road and it's relatively easy to break the law when you get into car. Which is fair enough given that it's also far easier to accidentally kill someone when you're driving a car. And whether we like it or not, one result of the strict enforcement of the law when it comes to driving is that the UK has one of the best road safety records in Europe.

Excellent post, and so much more eloquently put than I could manage.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by insomniak123

andykn, your response is a little harsh, motorists are jailed for the possbility that they might cause death due to their inability to drive properly (a thought crime),

Its no more a thought crime than shooting a gun at someone and missing.

It is deliberately committing an act that unecessarily risks life.

[mjcairney]

Originally Posted by Spiderkid

Try telling that to someone who's loved one was killed by a dangerous or drunk driver and who got off with a ban and a fine (http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sco...8057-20255777/). The truth is that if you kill someone through wreckless behavious, but you're behind the wheel of a car, you'll get a far lighter sentence than if you kill them in some other way ('accidentally'). And there are plenty of cases of people escaping bans who've been driving well over the speed limit or caught drunk driving, as long as their 'excuse' is good enough.

I just don't buy this 'driver victim' mentality. As long as you drive within the law you shouldn't have any problems. I don't hear people complaining at the number of security cameras there are in shops for instance, because most of us think that shoplifting is 'morally wrong' and so aren't bother by the pressence of measures to prevent, detect and aprehend anyone trying to shoplift. When it comes breaking the law in a car however, be it speeding, not paying due attention or 'having one for the road' a lot of people assume we have some sort of moral absolution and therefore protest at the number of measures in place to prevent, detect and aprehend people breaking the law in this way.

The reason that there are more measures in place to prevent people breaking the law in cars is because there are so many cars on the road and it's relatively easy to break the law when you get into car. Which is fair enough given that it's also far easier to accidentally kill someone when you're driving a car. And whether we like it or not, one result of the strict enforcement of the law when it comes to driving is that the UK has one of the best road safety records in Europe.

I am not condoning careless or dangerous driving, I merely make a valid point. Chances are, if you assault someone, you'll never ever see the inside of a courthouse. On national news the other night, it was stated that 4% of rapists face conviction and feel the force of the law.

Most motorists stopped for speeding WILL be fined.

Season's Greetings,

Martin.

[spl23]

Originally Posted by andykn

Yeah, what do 3,000 odd dead people a year matter anyway. It's less than 10 a day.

There must be about 20 million motorists in this country. Whenever any of them get into a car, they are controlling a ton or more of metal moving at up to 75mph. Fatalities are *inevitable* - the only way to reduce road deaths to zero is to ban driving outright. We already have what are statistically among the safest roads in the world, and the figure of 3,000 or so fatalities a year has been pretty much constant for the last few years, in spite of increasing speed cameras, legislation and other safety measures. Quoting that figure has no bearing at all on this argument, unless you have any evidence of how many of those fatalities would be prevented by banning use of mobiles while driving - I would be prepared to bet that it is a very small number.

People are human, they make mistakes, they exercise imperfect judgement, and the vast majority of drivers are not operating at 100% efficiency all the time, whether through stress, illness, tiredness, or just thinking about the row they had with their partner that morning or the bad day they just had at work. *That* is what causes the majority of road deaths - simple mistakes, bad luck, bad weather etc. All the legislation in the world will not reduce or remove that - but it does give the goverment a nice little income on the side.

I hold a private pilot's license. While flying a light aircraft, you are expected to control the plane, watch out for other planes, navigate (quite often using a map, a stopwatch and a compass) and keep in radio contact with ground stations. The workload is substantially higher than when driving a car, and lack of concentration can be just as fatal, just as quickly. But no-one has ever decided that pilots need to stop using their radios as they are a dangerous distraction - and believe me, they are a sight more complicated to use than the average hands-free phone.

[Spiderkid]

Originally Posted by mjcairney

I am not condoning careless or dangerous driving, I merely make a valid point. Chances are, if you assault someone, you'll never ever see the inside of a courthouse. On national news the other night, it was stated that 4% of rapists face conviction and feel the force of the law.

Most motorists stopped for speeding WILL be fined.

Season's Greetings,

Martin.

I do agree with this sentiment, the issue is that the system isn't always fairly ballanced, and no one is arguing that crimes like assault and rape should not be given much harsher sentences to reflect both intent and consequences.

I think that because there are so many driving related offences (from minor to major) that there's a general perception that drivers are more heavily penalised in comparison to other groups of people who might break the law in other ways. I can see that point, but the conclusion is that we should have better measures in place to secure convictions against these other crimes, and not be 'softer' on motorists.

No one is forced to speed. Everyone who does so takes a calculated risk, both with their own safety, the safety of passengers and other road users, and they take a risk of getting court. The truth is, only a very small fraction of people who actually speed are ever caught, so I think it's perfectly fiar that those who are caught pay a fine, otherwise why bother with the law in the first place?

[WelshBluebird]

I dunno about the heandsfree thing. I personally can't see it being any different to talking to someone who's in the car with you. I'm only a learner driver (little over 3 months), and I can quite happily hold a conversation in the car, while being safe on the road, and I see no reason why talking to someone using a handsfree kit is any more dangerous.

However, the use of handheld phones while driving is deadly, and if you get caught, you deserve to have the book thrown at you. If I had a pound for everytime I see a driver who's using their handheld phone in driving dangerously, then I'd be a mllionare. Pulling out of a junction without looking, going through a narrow street at 40mph+ because their not concentrating, not braking in time and having to swerve, running red lights etc etc. It is never justified, and is as dangerous as drink driving IMHO.

[mjcairney]

Originally Posted by Spiderkid

I do agree with this sentiment, the issue is that the system isn't always fairly ballanced, and no one is arguing that crimes like assault and rape should not be given much harsher sentences to reflect both intent and consequences.

I think that because there are so many driving related offences (from minor to major) that there's a general perception that drivers are more heavily penalised in comparison to other groups of people who might break the law in other ways. I can see that point, but the conclusion is that we should have better measures in place to secure convictions against these other crimes, and not be 'softer' on motorists.

No one is forced to speed. Everyone who does so takes a calculated risk, both with their own safety, the safety of passengers and other road users, and they take a risk of getting court. The truth is, only a very small fraction of people who actually speed are ever caught, so I think it's perfectly fiar that those who are caught pay a fine, otherwise why bother with the law in the first place?

I'm sure you're aware that we're all judged on statistics of one kind or another - well, you should also be aware that so too are the police, and one of their KPIs is "number of crimes solved" - please also be aware that every time a motorist is stopped and charged with e.g. speeding, that goes into the statistics as another crime solved - need I say any more?

Anyway, we are really getting here, for which I apologise.

Season's Greetings,

Martin.

p.s. For anyone who does not know, KPI stands for Key Performance Indicator.

[ste v p]

Originally Posted by andykn

Yeah, what do 3,000 odd dead people a year matter anyway. It's less than 10 a day.

As a wiser man than me said "to err is human". My initial point, although reactionary and sarcastic, was that many road accidents are caused by things that are not covered by the law and will never be. Perhaps automated cars might reduce the death toll to zero.

Perhaps i've been watching too many films about civil liberties being removed because we can't be trusted to do as we should. I'm not in any way supporting an anarchic form of living but i'm constantly frustrated by the blame culture that is so prevalent today.

[insomniak123]

Originally Posted by mjcairney

I'm sure you're aware that we're all judged on statistics of one kind or another - well, you should also be aware that so too are the police, and one of their KPIs is "number of crimes solved" - please also be aware that every time a motorist is stopped and charged with e.g. speeding, that goes into the statistics as another crime solved - need I say any more?

Anyway, we are really getting here, for which I apologise.

Season's Greetings,

Martin.

p.s. For anyone who does not know, KPI stands for Key Performance Indicator.

KPI's are the single reason that everything in this country is going to pot. I can put my hand on my heart and state that without a shadow of a doubt That's my last comment I'll make, I'm on a roll today

spl your post was quite simply perfection

right I'm done

[andykn]

Originally Posted by WelshBluebird

...I see no reason why talking to someone using a handsfree kit is any more dangerous.

Because research has shown that it impairs your reactions much more than talking to someone in the car. See the OP.

[insomniak123]

Originally Posted by andykn

Because research has shown that it impairs your reactions much more than talking to someone in the car. See the OP.

slightly impairs reactions. No proof that judgement, awareness, concentration or anything else are impaired. In fact I'd be willing to bet that comparing night-time and day-time driving, day-time with a handsfree would still beat night-time reactions by a loooooong way

[andykn]

Originally Posted by spl23

Fatalities are *inevitable* - the only way to reduce road deaths to zero is to ban driving outright.

FYI modern Road Safety practice is to not use the word "accident" as all collisions are avoidable.

Quoting that figure has no bearing at all on this argument, unless you have any evidence of how many of those fatalities would be prevented by banning use of mobiles while driving - I would be prepared to bet that it is a very small number.

Almost certainly. But still quite significant to those affected. We have a Government we vote in to decide for us whether or not we think those few lives are worth being able to chat to the wife on the way home.