Driving & mobile phones are driving me mad!

I suspect there's a difference in the risk level between a brief interchange of information on the phone or two way radio and holding an extended conversation with someone. Whether that someone is in the car with you, or on the other end of a phone, probably makes little or no difference.

David,

I agree.

In twenty years time when the nanny state really has an iron grip, forward-facing multi-purpose speed cameras will be activated if your lips move...

Camlan,

Two-way radios are exempt.

Regards,

Steve.

$230 fine and 3 de-merit points (out of 10) for taking a phone call without pulling over. Quite heavilly policed here in Aus as banned to drive whilst holding a phone. Handsfree kits are legal to use.

Keith...having to slow down even more for our own revenue generators, sorry spped cameras.

"With a passenger aboard my gut feeling (in the real world with real people) is that that the passenger would prefer me to take the call without pulling over. Many are impressed that I'm at least suitably equipped for the job.

The use of hand-held devices is reprehensible however.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of my friends tried arguing the same and, to prove the point, decided to travel from London to Manchester and hold a conversation every half hour for ten minutes all the way here. His wife reported eight near misses to which he was completely oblivious. Sometimes he was too fast, sometimes he was too slow, sometimes he was just that - oblivious. Suffice to say he was somewhat contrite after getting here. He continued his last conversation right into our driveway and dented our garage because he didn't judge his stopping didtance correctly!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sounds like he's utterly useless as a driver to me."

Steve,

Several things:

a) what people in the "real world" would prefer is an utter irrelevance to a discussion about whether it is safe or not.

b) the journey my mate made was with 3 kids and plenty of periodic interruptions. All bar one of the incidents en route took place whilst the kids were asleep!!!

c) one of my colleagues was involved in a multi-vehicle crash, which they sadly caused. The call they took which distracted them was timed by the police at precisely 15 seconds. There is actually no evidence of which I am aware that even suggests that the length or nature of a call is relevant. Feel free to prove me wrong on that.

d) The bluetooth manufacturers are clearly covering their back but would they have to if there was the minimal risk you describe?

Mike

Riding a motorbike and not being cocooned in a nice safe little shell without the worries of the world affecting you, I get to see and take regular avoiding action from those drivers who believe they have total control even whilst on their phone, lighting a cigarette and having a swig of (hopefully) soft drink.

When I'm driving a car I ignore my mobile ringing until I can pull over and phone them back. If someone continues to keep ringing, I will answer (if safe to do so) and tell them I'm driving and will phone back, one mate though seems to ignore this and will continue talking at which point I will say "Bye, bye, bye" then hang up.

It irks me to see so many people just blase about the whole thing and just so oblivious as to what they're doing on the road. As some of the studies seem to state that driving whilst talking on a mobile phone is as bad as if not worse than drink driving, court sentancing for those caught should reflect that of drink drivers.

I take the view of, just because I have a mobile phone, it doesn't mean I'm at the beck and call of all who ring me or text me and I will answer back at my leisure and convenience, not theirs!

Steve.

Why do the taxi business not install a digital messaging system that sends text to receivers in the cars that are in the locality of the next victim (sorry customer)

I have seen this type of system working very well in very large citys

It requires minimum intervention by the driver and is asynchronous ie the base controller and the driver do not have to be on line at the same time.

Derek

<< >>

Some fascinating responses.

1) I'm glad I don't live in the same country as Mr Toy. Am I allowed to call him an arrogant, self-deluded twat? Probably not. So I won't.

2) Mrs & Mr Seagull have my greatest admiration.

Many would have backed down under the pressure put on them by the bullying police officer. Many would have simply let it drop because that's just what most people do. I note he covered his back ASAP.

3) If the insurance companies cared they'd put a clause in to say that mobile phone users are completely uninsured while the vehicle is moving. One must presume those who write the insurance clauses never travel by car? Or are themselves heavy users of the mobile phone while driving?

4) One wouldn't really expect the phone companies to do anything about vehicle inhibition would we? Thought not.

Nime

Steve when you are driving people around do you ever say:

'Well of course what they should do is...'

and

'Yea we were poor, but we were happy'

Derek,

As you say, the system works well in large cities where fleets of taxis may number as many as 100 vehicles. A base operator using the two-way radio system certainly couldn't cope.

In rural areas where taxi firms may only have about half a dozen vehicles running around at any given time, the system would be both uneconomic in terms of financial outlay - it costs roughly double a CDS3/XPS2/552/500/DBL system, and also because a human being who knows his/her customers and their habits (for example, how punctual or flexible they are when the taxi arrives outside the appointed place) is far more effective than a machine.

The government also acknowledges that the risk of accident caused by the use of two-way radios is but a theoretical one.

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

1) I'm glad I don't live in the same country as Mr Toy. Am I allowed to call him an arrogant, self-deluded twat? Probably not. So I won't.

---

Well that's ok then isn't it?

I'm just trying to do my job that's all without some ill-informed upstart coming along and completely fcuking it up...

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

As it is illegal now to use one's hands to take a mobile phone call when driving, what is the position re taxi drivers 2 way radios in the scenario you outline above.

---

The use of 2 way radio's by holding the handset is the same as the use of a mobile phone.

quote:

---

well driving while drunk is only a theoretical risk as well. It doesn't affect most people's driving ability at all (I'm presuming here that you're over the limit but no so drunk you don't know what day it is).

---

With both the above situations the divided attention task that is driving is affected. Both are self induced (answering the radio/phone & drinking). I find it amazing that anyone can suggest you need to be off your face before driving is affected by drink/drugs...

In relation to affecting driving ability, and it not affecting most peoples ability to drive, this has been researched in depth and even a half unit of alcohol starts to affect reaction time etc therefore affecting driving ability.

quote:

---

Many would have backed down under the pressure put on them by the bullying police officer. Many would have simply let it drop because that's just what most people do. I note he covered his back ASAP.

---

This could be viewed the way you say, or it could be viewed as reporting the crash. Either way the Inspector offered the chance for the cformal complaints procedure to be invoked, which is a quite right and proper course of action to take. Personally I think its absoluty right that, if you are correct in your actions, that the officer and his girlfriend should be challenged re their behaviour. Trust me in that officers are held far more accountable now than they ever used to be for their actions both whilst on and off duty!

andy c!

Thank God these dangerous mobile phone users are not exceeding the speed limit at the same time, eh?

cheers

Nigel

quote:

---

The use of 2 way radio's by holding the handset is the same as the use of a mobile phone.

---

No it isn't. Get your facts straight.

Two-way radios are licensed by the government.

Regards,

Steve.

Steve,
It is illegal to use a mobile handset whilst driving. Its driving without due care and attention. I do know what I am on about here.

Just because the set is licenced by the govnt for use does not mean it can be used whilst actually driving. If you are involved in a crash , it is shown you were using the hand set for such a device and it was a contributory factor to the crash, you could render yourself liable to be prosecuted.

regards

andy c!

This morning I drove into Bristol and was not surprised to see someone who had pulled over and parked to use their mobile phone.

What did surprise me was that it was on double yellow lines outside of the BRI Hospital, and there were at least 5 Fire Engines trying to park where he was, as people were evacuating the building.

Regards
Geoff

quote:

---

I find it amazing that anyone can suggest you need to be off your face before driving is affected by drink/drugs...

---

do you really need to misquote me? Did you actually read what I said? Most driving doesn't require lightning quick reactions, so I don't see how that can be affected by a few drinks.
It's when you're called on to do something that does involve quick reactions that the problems arise.
There are plenty more people driving around pissed every day (police too busy collecting revenue from cameras to worry about dangerous driving) than actually manage to even be involved in an accident let alone cause one.
Please note here that I'm not arguing that people should be allowed to drive while drunk, just that we should realise what the actual problem is in doing so.

The difference between driving when under the influence of alcohol, and driving when on your phone, is that with the former there is this unshakeable fuzzy feeling in your head that slows everything down, and with the latter there is the option of suspending your conversation in an instant in order to be able to tackle any impending hazard.

Naturally, if you are using a hand-held device your reactions will be delayed somewhat by having to put the handset down somewhere...

Regards,

Steve.

Andy,

I have a pdf document that made specific reference to the use of two-way radios in taxis and their exemption from legislation.

If you email me at Stevenjtoy6 [at] a o l dot com I'll send you an attachment.

Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steve Toy on Fri 19 November 2004 at 2:44.]

quote:

---

with the latter there is the option of suspending your conversation in an instant in order to be able to tackle any impending hazard.

---

the main problem with that theory is that you don't tend to see the impending hazards while yacking on a phone - as proven in many tests.

2 way radios are exempt - not because it's any safer but because otherwise the police would be having a whole lot of fun fining themselves:

dft

quote:

---

Q14. Are 2-way radios included in the new offence?
The use of 2-way radio equipment when driving is not included in the new offence but remember there is still a risk of distraction and prosecution under other powers.

---

quote:

---

do you really need to misquote me? Did you actually read what I said? Most driving doesn't require lightning quick reactions, so I don't see how that can be affected by a few drinks.

---

Yes John I did.

I don't agree with what you put above.

Driving is a divided attention task. The addition of any distraction, whether that be beer or a mobile phone or a two way radio, reduces that task. Reduction of this by the above distraction reduces the ability to react to hazards. It also reduces the normal things people do as they concentrate on what they see as most important, e.g. turning without indicating, keeping the vehicle in a straight line rather than concentrating on speed, going too slow, not wearing a seatbelt etc.

You mention drink, which is a central nervous system depressant. Side effects of this include the reduced ability to do more than one task, of which driving is - its multi-task.

Also, in Notts the collection of money from camera's is done by support staff, not police officers.

Finally, I have had to go tell someone their nearest and dearest has been killed by someone who 'only had a few drinks' and 'thought it would be ok'. I did not enjoy this at all - let me tell you.

Steve,

scenario,

person drives car down road - crashes into rear of another car - witness sees him/her holding handset to two way radio and using same (This could be a taxi driver or a cop or a lorry driver for example). Driver of vehicle causing crash says he/she was on radio/phone at the time - get ready for the liability for the crash being his/hers and the potential for prosecution being there for Section three Road Traffic Act 1988 - Driving Without Due Care and Attention.

Remove the crash from the scenario - this is still an offence under the above section. Whether the Crown Prosecution Service charging standards would get you off with a warning or caution are another thing...

andy c!

I see the UK government is "getting tough" on illegal mobile phone use by drivers.

They are raising the fines from £30 to £60 with three points. Now that's getting really serious about this killer epidemic isn't it?

Do the UK speed cameras photograph the driver for identification purposes? Will they now also scan for illegal mobile phone use?

I wonder if they ever checked to see if Princess Di's driver was on the phone at the time of the crash?

HI,

quote:

---

They are raising the fines from £30 to £60 with three points. Now that's getting really serious about this killer epidemic isn't it?

---

And what would you propose they do about it, then?

andy c!

... and so to a new forum low.

Ladies and gentlemen we present for your edification people who think that even one drink is okay whilst driving despite tons of empirical evidence (anyone remember evidence rather than opinion?) conclusively to the contrary, and, people who think that anyone on a mobile can choose to not be distracted by their mobile and pay attention once again to the thing they should have been paying attention to in the first place!!!

Words, sadly, do not fail me on this occasion (not that it has ever been a problem, allegedly). You are idiots - end of!!!

Mike

MIke,
good points well put me thinks...

andy c!

The evidence that conversing on the phone or radio is dangerous is much more significant than (for example) that for passive smoking being dangerous. Whether the tool is hands-free or hand-held makes no difference.

So we have yet another example of government stupidity, they implement a law, waste manpower trying to enforce it, and make no difference at all to road safety except to reinforce the idea that it's OK to use a hands-free kit.

I really hope that police drivers don't routinely use their radios while actually driving.

Paul