closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 350 of 458

Thread: Banning hands free in cars

  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by Franky Four Fingers View Post
    WTF are you talking about about. Nothing has dawned on me other than the fact you're as thick as mince
    Meltdown detected. Is this acceptable?

  2. #302
    Grand Master Andyg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    24,924
    Do we all agree that anything which causes a driver to become distracted, whilst driving, can cause an accident

    Can we also agree that there are levels of distractions. Some things are very distracting, others less so.

    Can we also agree that all individuals are different. So something you might find distracting, like listening to something on the radio (sport for example), rubbernecking an accident, or having your wife (or significant other) or children "going off on one", being told by your boss you have been fired, or that your youngest has just been rushed to hospital, may be tad more distracting than say having a short conversation with SWMBO to tell her that you are running a bit late and will be home 15 minutes later, or her telling you to stop and get the some milk.

    Can we all agree that other factors impact our ability to be distracted. Weather conditions, ambient light light levels, the speed we are travelling, other factors like whether we know the road, other drivers behaviour, etc.

    Can we all agree, that some people are more focused on the task in hand or that some people have better co-ordination and simply have the ability to multi-task. People like Lewis Hamilton for example who can drive very fast, hit apexs, change gear, brake, adjust his take balance all whilst talking to his race engineer, where as some people struggle to find the floor when they get out of bed.

    Finally I very much doubt anyone would question that having two hands on the steering wheel is much better than only having one.

    Therefore the question is, should legislation be put in place to accommodate every person, every condition, etc, irrespective of the individual skills and abilities, or should we have legistration which is actually enforceable and provides a level of common sense. Personally I would rather the individual take some responsibility for their own, and others safety, rather than expecting the government to do it for them.

    Where as it would seem others are much happier to place the responsibility for their actions in the control of others.
    Last edited by Andyg; 18th August 2019 at 19:28.

    Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
    Friedrich Nietzsche


  3. #303
    Finally I very much doubt anyone would question that having two hands on the steering wheel is much better than only having one.


    ​Yes there is and the reason why is thread is 303 long.

  4. #304
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Holsterman View Post
    They are not talking rubbish. Driving in heels isn't recommended because control is impaired, so it makes sense to ban that.
    Driving whilst wearing inappropriate (or no) footwear is already covered by legislation...


    Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.

  5. #305
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells
    Posts
    2,161
    One more comment from me on all of the to-and-fro on this thread...it does not matter what you think is the case, what “evidence” and “research” you can Google up; using a handheld mobile phone is not lawful.
    Don’t do it.


    Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.

  6. #306
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southern Spain
    Posts
    23,658
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Andyg View Post
    Personally I would rather the individual take some responsibility for their own, and others safety, rather than expecting the government to do it for them.

    So would I. Very much so but that ship has sailed a long, lóóóng time ago and the issue is now diffused by it also being a cash crop.

  7. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonG View Post
    Driving whilst wearing inappropriate (or no) footwear is already covered by legislation...


    Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.
    I never knew that, I wonder what inappropriate means

    Checked now, it is so subjective that it isn’t covered by legislation

    https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/r...is-it-illegal/
    Last edited by adrianw; 18th August 2019 at 23:25.

  8. #308
    Grand Master oldoakknives's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,041
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Huertecilla View Post
    So would I. Very much so but that ship has sailed a long, lóóóng time ago and the issue is now diffused by it also being a cash crop.
    Harvesting money from those breaking the law is ok by me.
    Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.

  9. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by oldoakknives View Post
    Harvesting money from those breaking the law is ok by me.
    If that was all that it is I would be happy to pay, but ridiculously they call them safety cameras in this country, oh and then their are penalty points.

  10. #310
    Grand Master oldoakknives's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,041
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by adrianw View Post
    If that was all that it is I would be happy to pay, but ridiculously they call them safety cameras in this country, oh and then their are penalty points.
    The safety part is a by product of people slowing down and obeying the speed limits.
    Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.

  11. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by oldoakknives View Post
    The safety part is a by product of people slowing down and obeying the speed limits.
    No it isn't, when the cameras are place on the blind side of bends they contribute nothing other than revenue, the only people they catch are vehicles driving trough as locals know the camera is there, they should be placed prior to the bend if the intention is to make the road safer and reduce accidents.
    Last edited by adrianw; 19th August 2019 at 08:30.

  12. #312
    Grand Master number2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North and South.
    Posts
    30,570
    Quote Originally Posted by adrianw View Post
    No it isn't, when the cameras are place on the blind side of bends they contribute nothing other than revenue, the only people they catch are vehicles driving trough as locals know the camera is there, they should be placed prior to the bend if they are to make the road safer and reduce accidents.
    Does this mean we should only drive within the speed limits when we KNOW there is a camera ahead?
    Last edited by number2; 19th August 2019 at 08:47.
    "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."

    'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.

  13. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by number2 View Post
    Does this mean we should only drive within the speed limits when we KNOW there is a camera ahead?
    Seems like it.

  14. #314
    Grand Master oldoakknives's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,041
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by adrianw View Post
    No it isn't, when the cameras are place on the blind side of bends they contribute nothing other than revenue, the only people they catch are vehicles driving trough as locals know the camera is there, they should be placed prior to the bend if the intention is to make the road safer and reduce accidents.
    There would normally be a sign advising the speed limit.
    Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.

  15. #315
    Quote Originally Posted by number2 View Post
    Does this mean we should only drive within the speed limits when we KNOW there is a camera ahead?
    The reality is that is what most people do, it is far more dangerous to drive looking at the speedometer every few seconds when the driver should be looking at the road in front, there is a big difference between a little bit of speed drift and speeding, yet most people are caught just over the limit. when it comes to safety yes a car doing 33 will take considerably longer to stop than a car doing 30 but our speed limits are mainly based stopping distances for older cars, even the thinking distance time is now incorrect as cars stop themselves if necessary.

  16. #316
    Quote Originally Posted by oldoakknives View Post
    There would normally be a sign advising the speed limit.
    Technically I don't think that is correct, in a 30 limit if there are more than three lampposts.

  17. #317
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southern Spain
    Posts
    23,658
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by oldoakknives View Post
    Harvesting money from those breaking the law is ok by me.
    You are missing the point:
    The safety argument is abused to make laws to cash in.
    It may come as a surprise to you but the law is not absolute: It not necessarily correct nor just, not even ethical. In this case it is diffused into a discutable way to make a profit.
    It´s the way it is but that does not make it an absolute just.

  18. #318
    Grand Master number2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North and South.
    Posts
    30,570
    Not trying to argue, as someone who's had a few speeding fines I've simply arrived at the conclusion that in any built-up area I stick within the limits, even on a motorway I can't be arsed going over 75, the roads are too busy and there's too many 'tools' trying for an early ride in a hearse.
    "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."

    'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.

  19. #319
    Grand Master oldoakknives's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,041
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Huertecilla View Post
    You are missing the point:
    The safety argument is abused to make laws to cash in.
    It may come as a surprise to you but the law is not absolute: It not necessarily correct nor just, not even ethical. In this case it is diffused into a discutable way to make a profit.
    It´s the way it is but that does not make it an absolute just.
    I don’t think the law is perfect. But the alternative would be even less so. In the main it exists to maintain a safer society, yes it has its faults.
    Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.

  20. #320
    Grand Master oldoakknives's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,041
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by adrianw View Post
    Technically I don't think that is correct, in a 30 limit if there are more than three lampposts.
    Entering a 30 limit would normally be signposted I think. But the onus is on drivers to be aware of the limit on a particular road.
    Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.

  21. #321
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southern Spain
    Posts
    23,658
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by adrianw View Post
    Technically I don't think that is correct, in a 30 limit if there are more than three lampposts.
    There indeed are blanket speed limits for types of roads and these need not be always indicated and the driver should know the law.

    Near the neighbouring village there is a profitable example:
    All ´camino rural´ used to be a blanket 40 km/h. This was indicated only by exception and all those roads were compacted ground gravel.
    To reduce dust for the locals some were/are coverd with tarmac by local authorities. Still a not indicated 40 as the type of road remains the same.
    The aforementioned example is such a black topped campo track. Since it´s improved surface, it is now a practical connection between a highway exit and the village.
    Enter speed traps.
    There never was a speed limit indicated and that led to complaints.
    Enter a small sign ´Camino rural´ at both ends.
    Earlier this year the blanket was lowered to 30 km/h.
    Great source of income from tourists coming off the highway!
    But hey, the buggers are breaking the law...

  22. #322
    Master Ruggertech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Deepest darkest South Wales.
    Posts
    7,058
    I can see how the actual act of having a phone conversation can be identically distracting whether hands free or hand held, assuming it is only the act of the conversation that is being examined and nothing else.
    But there is no way on God's green Earth that reaching for and picking up a phone, even if its conveniently placed, looking at it, pressing at least one button, holding it to your ear, and reversing the procedure when the conversation is over is anything other than very dangerous when on the road. Hands free I move my thumb about an inch to the green button to answer, and do the same with the red button to end the call. Hands never leave the steering wheel, eyes never leave the road.

  23. #323
    Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Driffield, UK
    Posts
    3,122
    Makes you wonder, when these limiters appear in cars, what are the authorities going to go to make up the short fall in revenue? Ditto the speed 'awareness' courses which are a VERY lucrative earner for the local council!

  24. #324
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southern Spain
    Posts
    23,658
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by solwisesteve View Post
    Makes you wonder, when these limiters appear in cars, what are the authorities going to go to make up the short fall in revenue? Ditto the speed 'awareness' courses which are a VERY lucrative earner for the local council!
    Ditto speed limit control in ubanised areas. Your car cán not even get an electronic signal about which speed limit applies from the State. Any such info you need buy through your satnav seller.
    Again; safety regulations and State revenue are a distinctly foul smelling subject.

  25. #325
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruggertech View Post
    I can see how the actual act of having a phone conversation can be identically distracting whether hands free or hand held, assuming it is only the act of the conversation that is being examined and nothing else.
    But there is no way on God's green Earth that reaching for and picking up a phone, even if its conveniently placed, looking at it, pressing at least one button, holding it to your ear, and reversing the procedure when the conversation is over is anything other than very dangerous when on the road. Hands free I move my thumb about an inch to the green button to answer, and do the same with the red button to end the call. Hands never leave the steering wheel, eyes never leave the road.
    Reasoning might suggest that hands-free is safer, but in fact it isn't. This is the entire point of the thread. The nub.

    When scrutinised in the light of evidence, none of these "it stands to reason" arguments (aka the Argument from Personal Incredulity) is in fact valid.

  26. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by Andyg View Post

    Finally I very much doubt anyone would question that having two hands on the steering wheel is much better than only having one.
    I would question it. It is better in some circumstances to have two hands on the wheel, but I can't drive everywhere in first so I suspect the difference between one and two hands is actually quite small. Paying attention is much more important.

    Loads of people rest their hands on the gear lever the entire time...

  27. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by Huertecilla View Post
    Ditto speed limit control in ubanised areas. Your car cán not even get an electronic signal about which speed limit applies from the State. Any such info you need buy through your satnav seller.
    Again; safety regulations and State revenue are a distinctly foul smelling subject.
    Modern cars with cameras have traffic sign recognition and GPS, I have often wondered why automatic speed limiters and continuous dash cams aren't already on cars, as the technology is already fitted I assume it is legislation, a cynic might say that it would cut off the revenue stream. this applies to mobile phone use as well.

  28. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by Holsterman View Post
    I would question it. It is better in some circumstances to have two hands on the wheel, but I can't drive everywhere in first so I suspect the difference between one and two hands is actually quite small. Paying attention is much more important.

    Loads of people rest their hands on the gear lever the entire time...
    If you do a car limits course they will have you driving with one finger, to show that the car is very capable and to stop the driver interfering and actually feel what the car is doing, this isn't a recommendation for the road.

  29. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by adrianw View Post
    If you do a car limits course they will have you driving with one finger, to show that the car is very capable and to stop the driver interfering and actually feel what the car is doing, this isn't a recommendation for the road.
    I've been to the PEC where they get you to drive at 100, put both hands on the roof lining and do an emergency stop with both hands off the wheel.

  30. #330
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by adrianw View Post
    I never knew that, I wonder what inappropriate means

    Checked now, it is so subjective that it isn’t covered by legislation

    https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/r...is-it-illegal/
    It is subjective but it IS covered by legislation under “exercising proper control” rather than a specific “thou shalt not wear platform boots” approach. The reason for the subjective nature is to allow the officer to take all factors into consideration.


    Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.

  31. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonG View Post
    It is subjective but it IS covered by legislation under “exercising proper control” rather than a specific “thou shalt not wear platform boots” approach. The reason for the subjective nature is to allow the officer to take all factors into consideration.


    Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.
    The Sun explains https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/6860...ints-road-ban/

    Could equally apply to that TZers favourite - Winter boots.

  32. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonG View Post
    It is subjective but it IS covered by legislation under “exercising proper control” rather than a specific “thou shalt not wear platform boots” approach. The reason for the subjective nature is to allow the officer to take all factors into consideration.


    Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.
    So an automatic in flip flops is ok?

  33. #333
    Master Ruggertech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Deepest darkest South Wales.
    Posts
    7,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Holsterman View Post
    Reasoning might suggest that hands-free is safer, but in fact it isn't. This is the entire point of the thread. The nub.

    When scrutinised in the light of evidence, none of these "it stands to reason" arguments (aka the Argument from Personal Incredulity) is in fact valid.
    At 30mph we are travelling at 44 feet per second. So if it takes say three seconds to pick the phone up, press buttons etc there's a lot of potentially mown down kids that can be fitted into a 132 feet stretch of road. This is just a simple fact, not invalid at all.

  34. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruggertech View Post
    At 30mph we are travelling at 44 feet per second. So if it takes say three seconds to pick the phone up, press buttons etc there's a lot of potentially mown down kids that can be fitted into a 132 feet stretch of road. This is just a simple fact, not invalid at all.
    It's not even a fact. The evidence shows that you are incorrect. Hands-free is every bit as dangerous.

  35. #335
    Master Ruggertech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Deepest darkest South Wales.
    Posts
    7,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Holsterman View Post
    It's not even a fact. The evidence shows that you are incorrect. Hands-free is every bit as dangerous.
    Agree there is no difference while the phone conversation is actually occurring, but the differing actions required to start and end the call just cannot have the same potential for risk, I'm truly puzzled how anyone can believe there is, evidence or not. I'll not argue any further, pointless for everyone.

  36. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruggertech View Post
    I'm truly puzzled how anyone can believe there is, evidence or not. I'll not argue any further, pointless for everyone.
    Well, I guess if evidence is insufficient to alter your opinion, then the second bit is spot-on.

  37. #337
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by adrianw View Post
    So an automatic in flip flops is ok?
    It may be, but there again it might not be. It all depends on the situation and whether your choice of chav-wear may have contributed to the incident.


    Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.

  38. #338
    Master PhilipK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    4,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruggertech View Post
    Agree there is no difference while the phone conversation is actually occurring, but the differing actions required to start and end the call just cannot have the same potential for risk, I'm truly puzzled how anyone can believe there is, evidence or not. I'll not argue any further, pointless for everyone.
    It's not that there is absolutely no difference in risk. The point is that the difference in risk is tiny, and completely swamped by the distraction caused by actually participating in a phone call. When you look at the end-to-end risk of participating in a call, there is no material difference in risk between handsfree and handheld.

    The end-to-end risk comprises:

    <TINY AMOUNT OF DISTRACTION STARTING THE CALL> + <HUGE DISTRACTION PARTICIPATING IN THE CALL> + <TINY AMOUNT OF DISTRACTION ENDING THE CALL>

    For all practical and/or legislative purposes, the end-to-end risk is the same whether the call is handsfree or handheld.

  39. #339
    I see Coco and Crusty as still banging the same drum

  40. #340
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Between here, there and nowhere
    Posts
    3,442
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipK View Post
    It's not that there is absolutely no difference in risk. The point is that the difference in risk is tiny, and completely swamped by the distraction caused by actually participating in a phone call. When you look at the end-to-end risk of participating in a call, there is no material difference in risk between handsfree and handheld.

    The end-to-end risk comprises:

    <TINY AMOUNT OF DISTRACTION STARTING THE CALL> + <HUGE DISTRACTION PARTICIPATING IN THE CALL> + <TINY AMOUNT OF DISTRACTION ENDING THE CALL>

    For all practical and/or legislative purposes, the end-to-end risk is the same whether the call is handsfree or handheld.
    How so, if you only have one hand on the wheel when using a handheld?

  41. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by nunya View Post
    How so, if you only have one hand on the wheel when using a handheld?
    All you need to know is it’s just because it bloody well does. Forget logic and the fact it’s obvious.
    Websites will give you all the proof you need

  42. #342
    Master PhilipK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    4,215
    Quote Originally Posted by nunya View Post
    How so, if you only have one hand on the wheel when using a handheld?
    Please go back and read the whole thread - there are enough explanations, and links to peer-reviewed scientific research by clever people who actually know what they are talking about, to explain it.

    Unfortunately there will always be people who are too stupid to understand that some issues are complex and that reality can be counter-intuitive. They are probably the same people who believe that the earth is flat, that you should not vaccinate your children, and that Santa Claus exists. You can try to help them to understand, up to a point, but eventually you just have to choose between pitying them and laughing at them.

  43. #343
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    south of the river..
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Franky Four Fingers View Post
    I see Coco and Crusty as still banging the same drum
    I see that you're still choosing to ignore evidence, research & facts..



    by Dr Shaun Helman, Chief Scientist, TRL

    This morning's Transport Committee report on driving and mobile phones is to be welcomed, for focusing our attention on a pressing and growing road safety issue. As someone who provided evidence to the committee, I don’t need convincing that the use of a mobile device while controlling a vehicle is something that must be considered by those seeking to reduce death and injury on the road. I also believe that the debate we keep having on this issue misses the important points, time and time again.

    First let’s deal with some basic facts, which the report accepts. You cannot drive and do another task at the same time without your driving, and the other task for that matter, suffering. Experimental psychologists have known this for decades. TRL research published in 2002, using our driving simulator (a nice safe place to test things like this) also showed quite clearly that the accuracy and speed of drivers’ responses to sudden events on the road ahead were adversely affected by conversation-like tasks, and that crucially it didn’t matter if the conversation was hands-free, or on a hand-held phone.

    While this finding has been important in defining the issue ever since, it is these phrases – ‘hands-free’ and ‘hand-held’ – that mislead us. First, the phrase ‘hands-free’ misleads us by making us think that if a task ‘leaves the hands free’ then it will not be distracting. The TRL research and others have shown that this is certainly not the case; there are many types of distraction (the other two main ones being visual – where you are looking, and cognitive – what you are thinking about). Second, the phrase ‘hand-held’ misleads us by making us think that it is the ‘holding’ a device that is the worst thing to be doing with the hands while driving. It isn’t; there are many other ways in which a driver can manipulate a device and which are much more likely to cause a crash – texting, browsing social media, scrolling through app functions and so-on. And other types of distraction tend to be present when manipulating (not just holding) a device; looking at the device (and therefore not at the road), thinking about what one is writing, what someone is saying on social media, or which song to choose next. All of this has been shown (in TRL research and elsewhere) to distract drivers.

    The Transport Select Committee report mentions ‘hands-free’ or ‘hand-held’ (or both) in every one of its recommendations. But this language frames the issue in completely the wrong way. I’d like to suggest an alternative framing, which can move us forward in educating the next generation of drivers (the ones who have never known life without smartphones, incidentally). I think we can all agree that if someone is driving, we would like them to have their eyes on the road, their mind on the traffic situation, and their hands on the controls of their vehicle. This characterisation of the issue would mean that recommendations can be focused on enabling these ideals, rather than on banning certain types of device use on the basis of false dichotomies.

    Driving? Eyes on the road, mind on the traffic, hands on the wheel. Simple.

  44. #344
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sunny Surrey
    Posts
    1,831
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipK View Post


    Unfortunately there will always be people who are too stupid to understand that some issues are complex and that reality can be counter-intuitive. They are probably the same people who believe that the earth is flat, that you should not vaccinate your children, and that Santa Claus exists. You can try to help them to understand, up to a point, but eventually you just have to choose between pitying them and laughing at them.
    Just link to the research that concludes that:

    Looking over, picking up a phone, looking at the screen, pressing the accept button, and holding the phone whilst having a conversation.

    Is as dangerous as:

    Pressing a button on the steering wheel, then having a conversation.

    As all I've seen so far is the conversation bit, please enlighten the stupid.

  45. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by cbh View Post
    Just link to the research that concludes that:

    Looking over, picking up a phone, looking at the screen, pressing the accept button, and holding the phone whilst having a conversation.

    Is as dangerous as:

    Pressing a button on the steering wheel, then having a conversation.

    As all I've seen so far is the conversation bit, please enlighten the stupid.
    It's all upthread with a couple of meltdowns in there too, as a bonus. Happy reading.

  46. #346
    Master PhilipK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    4,215
    Quote Originally Posted by cbh View Post
    Just link to the research that concludes that:

    Looking over, picking up a phone, looking at the screen, pressing the accept button, and holding the phone whilst having a conversation.

    Is as dangerous as:

    Pressing a button on the steering wheel, then having a conversation.

    As all I've seen so far is the conversation bit, please enlighten the stupid.
    That's a spurious question, as I'm sure you realise. There are, of course, marginal differences in the risk profiles of the two actions, but relative to the total risk involved in participating in a telephone call while driving they are not statistically significant. For all practical, legislative and safety purposes, handsfree and handheld telephone calls are equally as distracting to the driver and are therefore equally dangerous.

    As for links to the research, I'm not here to spoon feed you, and they are available elsewhere in this thread.

  47. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by Holsterman View Post
    It's all upthread with a couple of meltdowns in there too, as a bonus. Happy reading.
    Meldowns.... really.

    You've purposely ignored what myself and others have said time and time again.
    A simplest grasp of understanding is eluding you to the point of disbelief.
    If you can’t understand it and see how stupid you’re actually making yourself sound then there’s really not help for you.
    You can carrying on banging the same drum but there’s no way that a handheld call and hands free call carry the same level of distraction....... despite your endless website links

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Holsterman View Post
    It's all upthread with a couple of meltdowns in there too, as a bonus. Happy reading.
    Meldowns.... really.

    You've purposely ignored what myself and others have said time and time again.
    A simplest grasp of understanding is eluding you to the point of disbelief.
    If you can’t understand it and see how stupid you’re actually making yourself sound then there’s really not help for you.
    You can carrying on banging the same drum but there’s no way that a handheld call and hands free call carry the same level of distraction....... despite your endless website links

  48. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by Franky Four Fingers View Post

    Meldowns.... really.

    You've purposely ignored what myself and others have said time and time again.
    A simplest grasp of understanding is eluding you to the point of disbelief.
    If you can’t understand it and see how stupid you’re actually making yourself sound then there’s really not help for you.
    You can carrying on banging the same drum but there’s no way that a handheld call and hands free call carry the same level of distraction....... despite your endless website links
    Ya really. If you're going to start calling people dicks and claiming they are thick as mince on a public forum, it suggests that you've lost control of yourself. The Coco and Crusty remark shows that you are still a little upset, even today.

    Your other question has been addressed, upthread.

  49. #349
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    M62 corridor
    Posts
    4,711
    You really couldn't make it up! The Transport Select Committee report deals exclusively with "Road safety: driving while using a mobile phone".

    And why's that, I hear you ask? The introduction says: "
    In March 2019 we launched an inquiry into road safety, inviting views on the Government’s current approach and suggestions on what interventions would be most effective at reducing the number and severity of road traffic collisions. Several submissions to our call for evidence highlighted the issue of driving while using a mobile phone as an area of concern."

    The report cites the number of injuries attributed to accidents where "
    Driver using mobile phone" was one of the contributory factors. It even links to the DoT statistics published last September. All good so far.

    However, if you look at the statistics on which the whole premise of the report is based, you will see on the line immediately below "Driver using mobile phone", a line for accidents caused by "Distraction in vehicle".

    Compared to "Driver using mobile phone", "Distraction in vehicle" was a factor in twice as many deaths, 3x as many serious injuries and nearly 7x as many slight injuries. In total, almost exactly 6x as many accidents resulting in injury of some kind.

    So our genius MPs sweat over a report which deals with something very specific ("Driver using mobile phone") and make no comment whatsoever on something ("Distraction in vehicle") significantly more dangerous.

    Looking at the statistics more generally, "Driver using mobile phone" was 23rd in the list of fatal accident factors, 53rd in the list of serious injury accident factors and 47th in the list of slight injury accident factors. Overall, 48th in the list of injury accident factors.

    Are our MPs really so thick that they aren't familiar with a risk-based approach that recognises limited resources need to be allocated to areas of greatest risk?







  50. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by Holsterman View Post
    Ya really. If you're going to start calling people dicks and claiming they are thick as mince on a public forum, it suggests that you've lost control of yourself. The Coco and Crusty remark shows that you are still a little upset, even today.

    Your other question has been addressed, upthread.
    Likening this thread and comparing to drink driving was a dick move and you know it.
    Also I think you’ll find that the name calling started a little earlier on than that.... stupid I believe was one.
    However nothing has been addressed upthread other than links to websites, which proves nothing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information